Greedy Capitalism is in the past.

Pat494

Legendary member
13,858 1,407
"Learning" about economics from a TED talk...what a joke!

Here is where you need to go: Mises Institute
No joke !
the Mises Institute is the world's leading supporter ( or so they claim ) of the ideas of liberty and the Austrian School of economics. The Austrian School was dominant years ago, but a bit passe these days. Things may have moved on nowadays. No longer are the fatcats at the top grabbing most of the company's value leaving little for the workers and shareholders.
 

Pat494

Legendary member
13,858 1,407
The new mantra is inclusiveness. That means not leaving certain sections of the public out in the cold while the usual lot are lining their own bank accounts with ever more money.
To obtain a team effort as many as possible must be onboard and rewarded.
 

Pat494

Legendary member
13,858 1,407
Well Corbyn has finally emerged from his shell to slag off the super rich. bad landlords etc.
He may now call himself a Socialist but of course he is still just a creature of the Union bosses living it up in rent free mansions.
Anyone for croquet ?
 

0007

Senior member
2,307 607
A new kind of capitalism - or any other moral code for that matter? What on earth makes anyone think that human nature has/will change – it hasn't done since time immemorial!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: cantagril

Pat494

Legendary member
13,858 1,407
I have no problem with the rich being wealthy as long as the poor of the country are not desperately poor. This would apply to many tin pot republics where the local dictator lives in luxury while the majority starve. Spread the wealth around imho. Britain just avoided a revolution in the past by giving just enough to the many poor to avoid complete revolution. Sods like Ceausescu tried to stay in power by force and was deposed with force. Roll on inefficient democracy, it has its merits bumbling along at snail's pace.
 

new_trader

Legendary member
6,232 1,285
I have no problem with the rich being wealthy as long as the poor of the country are not desperately poor. This would apply to many tin pot republics where the local dictator lives in luxury while the majority starve. Spread the wealth around imho. Britain just avoided a revolution in the past by giving just enough to the many poor to avoid complete revolution. Sods like Ceausescu tried to stay in power by force and was deposed with force. Roll on inefficient democracy, it has its merits bumbling along at snail's pace.
You are just rambling and it's painfully obvious you don't understand even basic economics. Not to worry though, Youtube can help.

 

Pat494

Legendary member
13,858 1,407
I understand very well what a cruel and heartless system extreme capitalism is.
It's people that are important. Extreme capitalism is only concerned with money. EC ravages the planet's natural resources and fouls up the atmosphere with greenhouse gases. There is enough to go around as long as the few are not hogging such a large share for themselves and delivering mere crumbs for the less fortunate. I see tough times ahead as people are increasingly being replaced by machines. One can't eat gold etc.
Have some feelings for your fellow man or suffer the results. Look after our only planet and nurture it, it's all we have.
 

timsk

Legendary member
7,086 1,879
You are just rambling and it's painfully obvious you don't understand even basic economics. . .
Poor ol' Pat; he's gonna start to think that everyone's getting at him as I've made similar comments about him on his 'ART - not just pretty pics' thread!

Chin up Pat - we love you really!
:p
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: Atilla and Pat494

J Livermore

Junior member
45 5
I have no problem with the rich being wealthy as long as the poor of the country are not desperately poor. This would apply to many tin pot republics where the local dictator lives in luxury while the majority starve. Spread the wealth around imho. Britain just avoided a revolution in the past by giving just enough to the many poor to avoid complete revolution. Sods like Ceausescu tried to stay in power by force and was deposed with force. Roll on inefficient democracy, it has its merits bumbling along at snail's pace.
Pat,

You can not help the poor (as a group) until they freely choose to use birth control on their own.
 

tomorton

Legendary member
7,449 1,008
I only watched the clip a few seconds - as far as it took me to find out from Wikipedia the guy is mega-rich. I could not stomach any more lecturing on the ills of capitalism after that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: new_trader

Pat494

Legendary member
13,858 1,407
Pat,

You can not help the poor (as a group) until they freely choose to use birth control on their own.
The poor won't accept that their numbers are limited while the rich need not bother.
Besides it's someone else's problem when one feels extra randy at 2 a.m. !!
If the limit is set at 2 children per couple then the population would gradually decrease.
As the problem gets worse and worse the need for nastier measures gets greater and greater.
They can't all come to Europe.
 

J Livermore

Junior member
45 5
The poor won't accept that their numbers are limited while the rich need not bother.
Besides it's someone else's problem when one feels extra randy at 2 a.m. !!
If the limit is set at 2 children per couple then the population would gradually decrease.
As the problem gets worse and worse the need for nastier measures gets greater and greater.
They can't all come to Europe.
Pat,

I wasn’t talking about limiting the poors’ number of children. Birth control is not forced sterilization. If they waited until they had more money behind them they could better afford a child in the future. Is Britain’s economy so bad that a poor person can’t improve himself or make his way up to the middle class?

As far as what you want, you will never get forced sterilization in the UK. Not unless a powerful dictator came to power. If that were the case you would have so many problems you wouldn’t care about overpopulation.
 

tomorton

Legendary member
7,449 1,008
I'm not qualified to tell anyone they should or shouldn't have children but if you have them you have to meet the consequences and so do your children.

So a great way to remain poor would be to have children within a single-parent household, in which the parent cannot take up significant employment. Or to bring children into a conventional two-parent household in which neither is employed.

We must all accept that poverty's not a crime, as it would be quite evil to criminalise the poor. But therefore nor can it be a crime that a person makes choices that leave them poor. Nor that they have children who will also be poor. But it isn't my responsibility to make them not poor any more. We're all free to make choices, and some choices will be bad.
 

Similar threads


AdBlock Detected

We get it, advertisements are annoying!

But it's thanks to our sponsors that access to Trade2Win remains free for all. By viewing our ads you help us pay our bills, so please support the site and disable your AdBlocker.

I've Disabled AdBlock