Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options

Happy Birthday Maggie!

1568101116

Comments

  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    But that's not the point, is it?

    If the retired doctor kept all of the profits and made the man work for £5.50 an hour then it would be stealing the labour of the employee. It's an obvious difference, it's not a hard point to grasp.

    Its investing, because he's buying a share of the business and getting a share of the profits in return, wasnt the whole argument that investing was always bad because its making money from money.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    I'm not in the business of criticising individuals like in this scenario, its pathetic and a waste of time. However, the basic relations on a macro scale in a capitalist system are exploitative. There's no getting away from it, its how the system works. People are forced to sell their labour to other people in order to survive.

    Youd critersise it if you thought you could though wouldnt you.

    Sorry I was talking about the real world not some fantasy la la land where your economic theories make sence.


    It feels good to play Blagsta at his own game short remarks with no substance, yes I could get used to this
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Youd critersise it if you thought you could though wouldnt you.

    What would be the point? As I said - criticising individual cases like that is absurd.
    Sorry I was talking about the real world not some fantasy la la land where your economic theories make sence.

    Or even a land where you can spell? Look - these theories are based on real life - have a look at that link I posted, also see this
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surplus-value
    It feels good to play Blagsta at his own game short remarks with no substance, yes I could get used to this

    Oh the irony. I've never seen you post anything of substance.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    I'm not in the business of criticising individuals like in this scenario, its pathetic and a waste of time. However, the basic relations on a macro scale in a capitalist system are exploitative. There's no getting away from it, its how the system works. People are forced to sell their labour to other people in order to survive.

    Its not exploiting someone, if they want to do it.......

    Do you really object so much to having to go and work for someone? Is it really that bad?

    Do you personally fell exploited?

    Why not start your own business then?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    Or even a land where you can spell? Look - these theories are based on real life - have a look at that link I posted, also see this
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surplus-value


    Oh the irony. I've never seen you post anything of substance.

    Im suprised no ones made that spelling crack before Id have expected to get it all the time, I dont though only from you

    My first post in this topic was definatly of substance, at least I explained my reasoning rather then just spout cheep slogans and insults
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Its investing, because he's buying a share of the business and getting a share of the profits in return, wasnt the whole argument that investing was always bad because its making money from money.

    missingthepoint.png
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    General government final consumption expenditure (% of GDP)

    1987 20.38
    1988 19.67
    1989 19.42
    1990 19.78
    1991 20.71
    1992 21.15
    1993 20.48
    1994 20.00
    1995 19.61
    1996 19.15
    1997 18.27
    1998 17.91
    1999 18.40
    2000 18.69
    2001 19.23
    2002 20.14
    2003 21.08
    2004 ..
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Im suprised no ones made that spelling crack before Id have expected to get it all the time, I dont though only from you

    My first post in this topic was definatly of substance, at least I explained my reasoning rather then just spout cheep slogans and insults

    I also find your posts deelpy hypocritical as you have completely ignored any of my points or examples. Well done you pompous prick.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Toadborg wrote:
    General government final consumption expenditure (% of GDP)

    1987 20.38
    1988 19.67
    1989 19.42
    1990 19.78
    1991 20.71
    1992 21.15
    1993 20.48
    1994 20.00
    1995 19.61
    1996 19.15
    1997 18.27
    1998 17.91
    1999 18.40
    2000 18.69
    2001 19.23
    2002 20.14
    2003 21.08
    2004 ..

    Well done, did you just make them up? or have you got a source?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    missingthepoint.png

    Well if he is missing the point it is because you are not expliaing your ideas very well..........
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    Well done, did you just make them up? or have you got a source?

    I do apologise.

    World Bank development Indicators...........

    I am sure that you makes you feel a lot better..........
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    I also find your posts deelpy hypocritical as you have completely ignored any of my points or examples. Well done you pompous prick.

    :lol:
    :lol:
    :lol:
    :lol:
    :lol:
    :lol:
    :lol:

    Don't nick my insults!
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Toadborg wrote:
    Its not exploiting someone, if they want to do it.......

    Do you really object so much to having to go and work for someone? Is it really that bad?

    Do you personally fell exploited?

    Why not start your own business then?

    You haven't been reading a word I've written or looked at any of those links have you?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Toadborg wrote:
    I do apologise.

    World Bank development Indicators...........

    I am sure that you makes you feel a lot better..........

    Thats not a proper source reference. Provide one please.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Excuse me? What is the problem exactly?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    You haven't been reading a word I've written or looked at any of those links have you?

    :yeees:

    standard get out clause, well done...........
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You haven't provided a proper reference. How did you cope at uni without knowing how to reference?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Toadborg wrote:
    :yeees:

    standard get out clause, well done...........

    I notice you didn't answer.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    'World Development Indicators' (2005), World Bank
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well it doesn't need one does it, seeing as it was a rhetorical question........
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    I also find your posts deelpy hypocritical as you have completely ignored any of my points or examples. Well done you pompous prick.

    I dont think its helpfull to call me that

    The only example with out going through each post youve given which comes close to an explanation is your "co-operative" instead of state owned communism which leaves a lot of questions, unfortunatly its friday and Im at work cant spend as much time as Id like to expalining why your wrong and im right
    I gave a detailed explanation on my first post then on why profit is legitimate and on why investing is legitimate, a lot more words than youve givern as an explanation
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Toadborg wrote:
    :yeees:

    standard get out clause, well done...........

    Well you clearly haven't.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yes obviously I have not read a single word that Blagsta has written, obviously.......... :rolleyes:

    Claiming I haven't read anything is Blagstas standard way of avoiding the fact that he hasn't explained himself at all, and has said very little of substance.........
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yes in that case the paper was valueless and guess what it was very bad most people ended up existing within a barter economy and people wernt happy with it, nor would you be.

    No, it was always valueless, just as the pound is. Problem was someone noticed, a panic started and it's true value was revealed, bankrupting everyone in the space of days.
    A much better system is where the government keeps controlle of the money supply keeps people beleiving in "valueless paper" then guess what it stops being valueless

    How do they do this again?
    you can get paid in it and buy with it therefore its not valueless is it?

    Of course it is. To take an example. I take out a £6000 loan, and idiots take paper and ink off me in exchange for real goods (thick bastards). I then refuse to pay the bank back. What has the bank factually lost?

    Paper and ink. Heres a voucher for staples, get the fuck away from me.

    It gets even more comical if I have paid by check, because I have sold my signature for whatever "price" the goods was. To take matters to an even more ridiculous extreme, the bank has typed into a computer that I have £6000 and this figure is transfered to other banks to "settle debts". I don't pay them back. What is the bank short of factually?

    £6000 typed on a computer screen.

    Just like that one. The whole thing is ridiculous and can collapse at any moment. Just takes 9% of people to ask for their money in "cash"all on the same day and the system will fail.

    For some reason you think it;s a good thing that the whole world you live in can drop out of the sky at any moment. I don't. Go figure.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    klintock wrote:
    . I take out a £6000 loan, and idiots take paper and ink off me in exchange for real goods (thick bastards). I then refuse to pay the bank back. What has the bank factually lost?

    Paper and ink. Heres a voucher for staples, get the fuck away from me..


    Funny thats exactly what I tried to tell those so called "policemen" but they wouldnt listed, kept on saying I had "commited a theft" and had to go to court bastards eh.

    Typical of people not listening to reason isnt it ?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    How on earth does klintock survive in the real world?

    I can imagine him going to the supermakret with a van full of stuff to try and barter for some food...............
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Funny thats exactly what I tried to tell those so called "policemen" but they wouldnt listed, kept on saying I had "commited a theft" and had to go to court bastards eh.

    What had I stolen, factually?

    Paper and ink. Which I am happy to supply the cost of replacing. (Currently about the worth of the copper in the penny to every 3 £50 notes printed.)

    Hell, in the case of a credit card, they actually create the money from nothing for you. Once you spend it, the books are balanced and they don't even have a loss at all.

    That's accountancy, that is.
    How on earth does klintock survive in the real world?

    The one you don't visit you mean? Better that you could possibly imagine. :)
    I can imagine him going to the supermakret with a van full of stuff to try and barter for some food...............

    Hey, if you are going to be dim enough to accept paper I am going to be dim enough to give it to you. I only accept it myself so I can turn it as quickly as possible into shit that's actually got value.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Toadborg wrote:
    'World Development Indicators' (2005), World Bank

    It might be an idea to let us know how I can verify it, i.e. a link. Anyway, what does it prove? Can you name me any industries that have been nationalised since the 80's? How about industries that have been privatised? How about PFI's and PPP's?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I dont think its helpfull to call me that

    The only example with out going through each post youve given which comes close to an explanation is your "co-operative" instead of state owned communism which leaves a lot of questions, unfortunatly its friday and Im at work cant spend as much time as Id like to expalining why your wrong and im right
    I gave a detailed explanation on my first post then on why profit is legitimate and on why investing is legitimate, a lot more words than youve givern as an explanation

    :confused: Sorry, I can't relly make head nor tail of that. You ever heard of punctuation?
Sign In or Register to comment.