- Joined
- Jul 23, 2005
- Messages
- 6,923
- Reaction score
- 1,738
- Location
- Staffs, England
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
Perhaps they might have addressed these sorts of problems when they were spending like drunken sailors. Austerity is a consequence, not a cause.
Council housing right?
"Today’s fire in Grenfell Tower is not outside of politics — it is a symbol of the United Kingdom’s deep inequality."
All you left wing looters take note: The UK is at least a generation ahead of us in the wealth redistribution scam and still they suffer from "deep inequality."
NO. When you nearly destroy an economy with one course of action, the solution is not more of the same!
For the Tories, austerity is neither; it's a religion. Economic growth has stalled because of a lack of government spending, not because of too much.
Perhaps the sun will rise in the West tomorrow.Perhaps they might have addressed these sorts of problems when they were spending like drunken sailors. Austerity is a consequence, not a cause.
economic models world-wide show different, deficit spending not being a recent invention.That makes no sense. You cant spend what you don't have.
That's what I do but then my means are sufficient in such a manner that my personal economy doesn't need incentives so as to get off the ground.Austerity is just living within your means.
economic models world-wide show different, deficit spending not being a recent invention. That's what I do but then my means are sufficient in such a manner that my personal economy doesn't need incentives so as to get off the ground.
Wanting to project a housewife's little balance book onto national economies wouldn't really show as having any in-depth understanding of economics.
Sure.Is the UK currently running a deficit?
Sure. But if true all the more reason to oppose socialization.
And privatization.
Like water, highways, healthcare, 90% of education, railway tracks, air quality, health and safety protection, air traffic control. Virtually nothing's public-run really.No, most things you deal with on a daily basis are privatized.
You don't mean 'socialization'. 'Socialization' is "the process of internalizing the norms and ideologies of society".Socialization removes accountability after it destroys profitability and innovation.
Not surprisingly, you missed the point. I swear, sometimes you guys have your heads so far up the ass of the state you cant think straight. Sorry, but most peoples daily lives and interactions are with people and things in the private sector--from where they work to where they shop to where they eat. People like you who need the nanny state to hold your hand through life just ignore the obvious.Like water, highways, healthcare, 90% of education, railway tracks, air quality, health and safety protection, air traffic control. Virtually nothing's public-run really.
That is both wrong and stupid at the same time. But spoken like a man who has never held a position of responsibility in the private sector or started a business of his own. Tell you what Rockefeller, go start a business that answers only to owners and regulators and no the public and see how far you get.You don't mean 'socialization'. 'Socialization' is "the process of internalizing the norms and ideologies of society".
You're talking about nationalisation or public enterprise, and you are 100% incorrect. Public-run services and enterprises are the ONLY services and enterprises accountable to society at large. Private enterprises answer only to owners and regulators.
Ethics??? You clearly have no idea what the term means if you dare ascribe it to institutions who derive their resources through the forcible confiscation of the property of others.Saying it destroys profitability is moot , since public enterprise is not intended to be a drive of profitability for individuals, but to operate ethically and reinvest publicly.
Sorry but you have no idea what innovations were lost had those resources taken by government been left in the hands of those who earned them. But sure, throw trillions of dollars at government and you are bound to get someone back of value. So what? That hardly justifies it.To say it kills innovation is to ignore all those amazing inventions and developments that have resulted from public enterprise - penicillin, splitting the atom, every space programme that's ever got off the ground, the WWW, CERN... the list is endless.
Why is it you liberals have so much trouble with truth and honesty? Here is a free tip for you: next time you feel the urge to lie to support your point, step back and analyze why it is that your point cant stand on its own in the light of truth. It could just be that your point is crap. Like here, for example.Your religious fervour for saying all things private = good, all things public = bad shows up your blinkered partisan approach, to just about everything.
Did you pay good money for that sort of education? I hope not, but maybe its not too late to get your money back. Although that level of brainwashing isn't likely to be undone by a mere refund check.Socialists believe in mixed markets, public and private working in tandem to mutual benefit, to a balanced set of goals, other than merely the profit motive. That might sound like heresy to you corporatist ideologues, but it's really quite moderate and balanced.
Not surprisingly, you missed the point. I swear, sometimes you guys have your heads so far up the ass of the state you cant think straight. Sorry, but most peoples daily lives and interactions are with people and things in the private sector--from where they work to where they shop to where they eat. People like you who need the nanny state to hold your hand through life just ignore the obvious.
That is both wrong and stupid at the same time. But spoken like a man who has never held a position of responsibility in the private sector or started a business of his own. Tell you what Rockefeller, go start a business that answers only to owners and regulators and no the public and see how far you get. Ethics??? You clearly have no idea what the term means if you dare ascribe it to institutions who derive their resources through the forcible confiscation of the property of others. Sorry but you have no idea what innovations were lost had those resources taken by government been left in the hands of those who earned them. But sure, throw trillions of dollars at government and you are bound to get someone back of value. So what? That hardly justifies it.
Why is it you liberals have so much trouble with truth and honesty? Here is a free tip for you: next time you feel the urge to lie to support your point, step back and analyze why it is that your point cant stand on its own in the light of truth. It could just be that your point is crap. Like here, for example.
Did you pay good money for that sort of education? I hope not, but maybe its not too late to get your money back. Although that level of brainwashing isn't likely to be undone by a mere refund check.
Grenfell Tower will surely endure as proof that there are some aspects of our lives that do not belong in the realm of profit. The outrage I saw was fuelled by years of frustration felt by people who found their homes managed by an unresponsive company, rather than by elected officials they could throw out.
I see, so most people's daily lives don't include interactions with education, health, transport and the like. Their daily lives just consist of the things you say. Got it.Not surprisingly, you missed the point. I swear, sometimes you guys have your heads so far up the ass of the state you cant think straight. Sorry, but most peoples daily lives and interactions are with people and things in the private sector--from where they work to where they shop to where they eat. People like you who need the nanny state to hold your hand through life just ignore the obvious.
That's not accountability. Which private enterprise has ever had its CEO sacked by its customers. Sheesh!That is both wrong and stupid at the same time. But spoken like a man who has never held a position of responsibility in the private sector or started a business of his own. Tell you what Rockefeller, go start a business that answers only to owners and regulators and no the public and see how far you get.
You've got some rightist libertarian kool aid dribbling down your chin.Ethics??? You clearly have no idea what the term means if you dare ascribe it to institutions who derive their resources through the forcible confiscation of the property of others.
It's difficult having a political conversation with someone who can't tell the difference between a liberal and a socialist, and then claims a monopoly on truth.Why is it you liberals have so much trouble with truth and honesty?
Blah, blah. Content-free drivel doesn't win you any arguments.Did you pay good money for that sort of education? I hope not, but maybe its not too late to get your money back. Although that level of brainwashing isn't likely to be undone by a mere refund check.
There is a passage from an opinion piece from the guardian that I think is poignant .
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/16/grenfell-tower-rebuke-right-rampant-inequality
There is a passage from an opinion piece from the guardian that I think is poignant .
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/16/grenfell-tower-rebuke-right-rampant-inequality
Intersting article about the horrific fire in London and how adequate housing should be a right.
https://jacobinmag.com/2017/06/grenfell-tower-fire-inequality-housing
We have thousands and thousand of privately owned apartment buildings here that don't catch fire. Not sure how one burning in England is somehow a rebuke to capitalism.
Again with the dishonesty. Why is truth such a stranger to you? I get that battling straw men is easier than dealing with what people actually say, but give it a shot.I see, so most people's daily lives don't include interactions with education, health, transport and the like. Their daily lives just consist of the things you say. Got it.
A CEO doesn't have to be 'sacked' to demonstrate that the company is responsive to the consumer. But go ahead and name for me that private business which doesn't care about how the public views its product.That's not accountability. Which private enterprise has ever had its CEO sacked by its customers. Sheesh!
Then you shouldn't need me to point out the ignorance of your comments. Yet you do.And FYI, I work in the private sector and have have been both a senior executive for Mr Murdoch, and run my own companies - three of them to be precise.
You must be referring to content free drivel like this ^. And no, I did not claim a monopoly on the truth. I simply pointed out that you lacked any familiarity with the concept.You've got some rightist libertarian kool aid dribbling down your chin.
It's difficult having a political conversation with someone who can't tell the difference between a liberal and a socialist, and then claims a monopoly on truth.
Blah, blah. Content-free drivel doesn't win you any arguments.
Grenfell tower is a warning that highlights the dangers of excess privatization, austerity, deregulation, and economic inequality.
Why? Explain how each of those things contributed to this tragedy.
So Grenfell Tower threatens to stand forever as a warning against four of the defining features of our era. First, deregulation – elevated to an ideal by the free marketeers of Thatcherism and pursued ever since. Protections for consumers or workers or residents have long been recast and despised as “red tape”, choking plucky entrepreneurs. A favourite slogan of the right was the promise of “a bonfire of regulations”. Well, they got their bonfire all right.
Second, and related, is privatisation, an animating ideal for the right since the mid-1980s. Grenfell Tower will surely endure as proof that there are some aspects of our lives that do not belong in the realm of profit. The outrage I saw was fuelled by years of frustration felt by people who found their homes managed by an unresponsive company, rather than by elected officials they could throw out.
Third comes austerity, which has depleted the ranks of housing officers and safety inspectors across the country. Hardly an excuse in the Royal Borough, mind you, which is said to have £300m sitting in a contingency fund.
But most obviously, Grenfell Tower is a story of inequality, of the poor herded into a cramped building made unsafe because it was prettified to improve the view of the nearby rich. One woman I met wondered if the fire had been started “deliberately, to get rid of us all”. She instantly withdrew that allegation, ashamed of herself for saying it. “But that’s what people feel,” she said.
Grenfell Tower should mark a point of no return. No return to the frenzied deregulation, cost-cutting and rampant inequality of the last four decades. These are not new evils. They have been lurking for many years. But it took the light of a burning building for the whole nation to see them.
It is the sentiments of the guardian article I mentioned earlier.
But none of that explains how this fire is the result of privatization. Maybe it is, I don't know. But I have not seen evidence that fires like this cant happen in state owned and operated buildings.
It is widely known that the borough council is run by the tories.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?