Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Any commies around?

Page 6 of 7 [ 103 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

28 Mar 2009, 3:49 am

ascan wrote:
Kangoogle wrote:
...anyone who wants a normal decent person as a kid should be wary of sending their kids to one.

Well, I've known several people who went to private schools, and I wouldn't agree with you.

Kangoogle wrote:
Bankers have made an awful lot of money out of the mess, why shouldnt they be punished for that?

What's wrong with making money? I think, like many leftists, you're just jealous. Most people look to maximise their income, and minimise effort, if they've any sense.


Of course, robbing banks, mugging old people, and selling worthless mortgages to the tune of billions is easy, profitable and, if you can get the government to back you up when the scam is revealed, a great way to make a living.



phil777
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 May 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,825
Location: Montreal, Québec

28 Mar 2009, 3:49 am

private schools? I was at one when i was younger, didn't make any friends and i was kinda sad, felt rejected and had suicidal thoughts for the first time ever. Changed to public system and everything suddenly got better. =p



ascan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2005
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,194
Location: Taunton/Aberdeen

28 Mar 2009, 3:57 am

Sand wrote:
Of course, robbing banks, mugging old people, and selling worthless mortgages to the tune of billions is easy, profitable and, if you can get the government to back you up when the scam is revealed, a great way to make a living.

But few have done that, have they? Afterall, mugging and bank robbery are illegal across most of the world.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

28 Mar 2009, 4:05 am

ascan wrote:
Sand wrote:
Of course, robbing banks, mugging old people, and selling worthless mortgages to the tune of billions is easy, profitable and, if you can get the government to back you up when the scam is revealed, a great way to make a living.

But few have done that, have they? Afterall, mugging and bank robbery are illegal across most of the world.


Assuredly not many bankers have done much mugging but where have you been the last few months?



DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

28 Mar 2009, 4:07 am

ascan wrote:
Sand wrote:
Of course, robbing banks, mugging old people, and selling worthless mortgages to the tune of billions is easy, profitable and, if you can get the government to back you up when the scam is revealed, a great way to make a living.

But few have done that, have they? Afterall, mugging and bank robbery are illegal across most of the world.


I think he he speaking metaphorically, the actions of these people may not be as obvious as mugging and bank robbery but in effect it is the same thing. And now these same people are (with the Obama administrations help and support) looting the public purse.

Whilst new 'Hoovervilles' are springing up in the US the bankers and ruling elite are being bailed out to the tune of several trillion dollars, and yet all Obama can do for the homeless is say that he is ""heartbroken that any child in America is homeless,"


_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx


ascan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2005
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,194
Location: Taunton/Aberdeen

28 Mar 2009, 4:24 am

DentArthurDent wrote:
I think he he speaking metaphorically, the actions of these people may not be as obvious as mugging and bank robbery but in effect it is the same thing. And now these same people are (with the Obama administrations help and support) looting the public purse.

And it's not a very good metaphor. I don't agree that it's anything like robbery. The banks are, or at least were, independent commercial organisation. The risks and safeguards were clearly available to anyone depositing money with them. Failure of commercial organisations is just part of how our system works. Companies go bust all the time, without any wrongdoing on the part of directors. The problem is not with the banks, but with us and our elected representatives.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

28 Mar 2009, 4:41 am

Zyborg wrote:
Selfishness is result from environment. I think "human nature" argument is crap. But herd instinct and hierarchic thinking is hindering human progress.


Wrong, wrong, wrong. Selfishness has been genetically embedded in the primate species for millions of years. Read some studies on chimps when you get a chance. They are a bad-ass murderous lot. Their cousins the Bonobos have a better disposition, but still act in a self-interested way. Selfishness is a survival characteristic that has been preserved by way of natural selection.

Actually primate behavior is a mix of co-operation and selfishness. But selfishness is there. The tendency to selfishness is innate and it is re-enforced by learning.

ruveyn



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

28 Mar 2009, 4:42 am

ascan wrote:
DentArthurDent wrote:
I think he he speaking metaphorically, the actions of these people may not be as obvious as mugging and bank robbery but in effect it is the same thing. And now these same people are (with the Obama administrations help and support) looting the public purse.

And it's not a very good metaphor. I don't agree that it's anything like robbery. The banks are, or at least were, independent commercial organisation. The risks and safeguards were clearly available to anyone depositing money with them. Failure of commercial organisations is just part of how our system works. Companies go bust all the time, without any wrongdoing on the part of directors. The problem is not with the banks, but with us and our elected representatives.


And "our elected representatives" were well financed and lobbied by the very financial institutions that are getting their payback now in trillions of dollars of bailout to re-establish the same financial manipulations that is robbing the taxpayers.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

28 Mar 2009, 4:54 am

Sand wrote:

And "our elected representatives" were well financed and lobbied by the very financial institutions that are getting their payback now in trillions of dollars of bailout to re-establish the same financial manipulations that is robbing the taxpayers.


Ah democracy! The rule of the incompetent by the immoral.

ruveyn



ascan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2005
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,194
Location: Taunton/Aberdeen

28 Mar 2009, 4:57 am

Sand wrote:
And "our elected representatives" were well financed and lobbied by the very financial institutions that are getting their payback now in trillions of dollars of bailout to re-establish the same financial manipulations that is robbing the taxpayers.

The "bailout" money is just an attempt at saving us from our own greed and stupidity. It's arguably a necessary evil. Of course our elected representatives could just let those institutions go under, but I think you'd find the results would be even less appealing. Basically, I suppose it all boils down to the problem of identifying and mitigating risk to the economy, and of keeping a reasonable national debt. Both of those we leave in the hands of our elected representatives, and in both cases they've failed.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

28 Mar 2009, 5:25 am

ascan wrote:
Sand wrote:
And "our elected representatives" were well financed and lobbied by the very financial institutions that are getting their payback now in trillions of dollars of bailout to re-establish the same financial manipulations that is robbing the taxpayers.

The "bailout" money is just an attempt at saving us from our own greed and stupidity. It's arguably a necessary evil. Of course our elected representatives could just let those institutions go under, but I think you'd find the results would be even less appealing. Basically, I suppose it all boils down to the problem of identifying and mitigating risk to the economy, and of keeping a reasonable national debt. Both of those we leave in the hands of our elected representatives, and in both cases they've failed.


And many economists have indicated it is not a necessary evil. It is merely not necessary. Paul Krugman, for instance.



ascan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2005
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,194
Location: Taunton/Aberdeen

28 Mar 2009, 5:46 am

Sand wrote:
And many economists have indicated it is not a necessary evil. It is merely not necessary. Paul Krugman, for instance.

But, and correct me if I'm wrong, he advocates taking over the banks along with their assets and liabilities. Still government involvement at a cost.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

28 Mar 2009, 7:01 am

ascan wrote:
Sand wrote:
And many economists have indicated it is not a necessary evil. It is merely not necessary. Paul Krugman, for instance.

But, and correct me if I'm wrong, he advocates taking over the banks along with their assets and liabilities. Still government involvement at a cost.


Good that you gave me that possibility. Taking over the banks does not mean disbursing a couple of trillion dollars into the pockets of the guys who created the mess. Read his columns.



ascan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2005
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,194
Location: Taunton/Aberdeen

28 Mar 2009, 9:11 am

Sand wrote:
ascan wrote:
Sand wrote:
And many economists have indicated it is not a necessary evil. It is merely not necessary. Paul Krugman, for instance.

But, and correct me if I'm wrong, he advocates taking over the banks along with their assets and liabilities. Still government involvement at a cost.


Good that you gave me that possibility. Taking over the banks does not mean disbursing a couple of trillion dollars into the pockets of the guys who created the mess. Read his columns.

I think you're misrepresenting the situation. The trillions are not going into any individual's pocket anymore than in the case of state ownership where you'd still have the need to remunerate individuals working for the organisation, and be bound by previous contractual relationships. Reducing decisions of this importance to the emotional level of putting money into the wrong people's pockets is what's going to prevent us getting out of this mess. However, I concede what you suggest is an option, and I think the UK are some way down that road, already, rightly or wrongly. If I had time I'd read more about it. I may very well do over the coming weeks.



Kangoogle
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Jan 2009
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 903

28 Mar 2009, 10:27 am

ascan wrote:
Kangoogle wrote:
...anyone who wants a normal decent person as a kid should be wary of sending their kids to one.

Well, I've known several people who went to private schools, and I wouldn't agree with you.

I suggest you come for a nice week or so up to Durham and meet some of them....

That said, you think Nick Griffin is a fine specimen of a human being, so you might not spot it...
Quote:
Kangoogle wrote:
Bankers have made an awful lot of money out of the mess, why shouldnt they be punished for that?

What's wrong with making money? I think, like many leftists, you're just jealous. Most people look to maximise their income, and minimise effort, if they've any sense.

I look to maximise my own happiness. Yes I look to maximise my income for minimum effort, but I see no point in going past a comfortable income. I simply couldn't spend it on anything useful.

Making money is fine, if its not at everyone elses expense. Banking merely redistributes wealth, rather than actually creating anything new. If they were making money by expanding our horizons then I would be more than happy for them to become as rich as they like tbh.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

28 Mar 2009, 10:32 am

Kangoogle wrote:
I look to maximise my own happiness. Yes I look to maximise my income for minimum effort, but I see no point in going past a comfortable income. I simply couldn't spend it on anything useful.

Making money is fine, if its not at everyone elses expense. Banking merely redistributes wealth, rather than actually creating anything new. If they were making money by expanding our horizons then I would be more than happy for them to become as rich as they like tbh.

In general, banking actually does do something new. It takes wealth that people currently don't want to use, and brings it to people who can productively use it. This social role is necessary, and would be done by some group in any society, even in communism, there'd be some planning board(or some such) allocating resources.