Marx said that the internal contradictions of capitalism would eventually destroy it.  The most destructive contradiction of all is that capitalists are always striving to pay lower wages and then don't understand why the market for their goods are shrinking.  Understandably as jobs are relocated to slave labour countries those back home are joining the dots and concluding that there has to be a better way. 

What follows is an interview with a Marxist economics professor who in recent years is all booked out in his talking tour around the US because people are embracing the socialist message in record numbers, particularly the younger generation .  This is an intelligent interview for those not frightened of exposing their mind to different ideas. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vm3HeYRIe8o

"Red is the new black"

all  those socialist countries out there going so well with  their top life expectancies and standard of living and laughing at us capitalists.

ian wrote on Nov 17^th, 2014 at 8:46am:

all  those socialist countries out there going so well with  their top life expectancies and standard of living and laughing at us capitalists.

Typically Ian, you're confused about what socialism is because you never really looked into it in any intelligent way.  What wrong? Is your mind so impressionable that you cant trust to expose it to different thoughts. Its quite pathetic really.    

ian wrote on Nov 17^th, 2014 at 8:46am:

all  those socialist countries out there going so well with  their top life expectancies and standard of living and laughing at us capitalists.

Yeah, just look at Norway. What a shithole.

I suppose all those millions who just voted the Republicans one of their best ever Congressional victories are part of your record numbers turning to socialism.
Or don't the people in the US count in your fantasy?

Quote:

...............the US because people are embracing the socialist message in record numbers, particularly the younger generation ..........

It's normally the younger people that like the ideals of socialism.
Also poor people who see it as a way to easily improve their lives.

The US has been too socialist for far too long. This has caused the problems there.

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 17^th, 2014 at 8:56am:

ian wrote on Nov 17th, 2014 at 8:46am: all  those socialist countries out there going so well with  their top life expectancies and standard of living and laughing at us capitalists. Yeah, just look at Norway. What a shithole.

Norway thrives on others greed...dont forget its countries like that that contributes the most to so called human caused  GW....it thrives on selling OIL>

interesting topic

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIorRwfKPyU

Smash Cultural Marxism

Sprintcyclist wrote on Nov 17^th, 2014 at 9:35am:

Quote: ...............the US because people are embracing the socialist message in record numbers, particularly the younger generation .......... It's normally the younger people that like the ideals of socialism. Also poor people who see it as a way to easily improve their lives. The US has been too socialist for far too long. This has caused the problems there.

“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”

Margaret Thatcher.

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Nov 17^th, 2014 at 8:38am:

.....people are embracing the socialist message in record numbers, particularly the younger generation......

Socialism has never succeeded long term, & is doomed to failure because it depends solely on taking money from the workers & wealth creators, & redistributes it to a permanent subculture that do not work for it, & ultimately never will.

This is usually done by political parties, not simply a good-will gesture for the betterment of mankind, no, it's all done for the political gain of those that create the programs that redistribute the wealth --- the political parties.

Eventually, the taxation increases astronomically, & businesses ultimately flee off-shore (it's happening now --here--in Australia), because less & less workers can be found to produce the wealth necessary to feed the starving engines of socialism.

“The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.”

Though, in the short term it will thrive because the wealth needed is plentiful, & there never is a shortage of hands outstretched for something "FREE".

Don't agree with Marx, but to some extent any successful society has to be socialist to a significant degree, since co-operation of a group is a basic part of human nature.

Only psychopaths operate alone...

BTW, the ability to actively and relentlessly pursue something of the nature of defending the indefensible, as with the James Hardie issue, is the sign of a psychopath - one good reason lawyers should be refused admission into politics

Panther wrote on Nov 17^th, 2014 at 9:41am:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Nov 17th, 2014 at 8:38am: .....people are embracing the socialist message in record numbers, particularly the younger generation...... Socialism has never succeeded long term, & is doomed to failure because it depends solely on taking money from the workers & wealth creators, & redistributes it to a permanent subculture that do not work for it, & ultimately never will. This is usually done by political parties, not simply a good-will gesture for the betterment of mankind, no, it's all done for the political gain of those that create the programs that redistribute the wealth --- the political parties. Eventually, the taxation increases astronomically, & businesses ultimately flee off-shore (it's happening now --here--in Australia), because less & less workers can be found to produce the wealth necessary to feed the starving engines of socialism. “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.” Though, in the short term it will thrive because the wealth needed is plentiful, & there never is a shortage of hands outstretched for something "FREE".

The problem with capitalism is that eventually some smart guy realises a system called "money" is required!  :D :D

Yeh, i wish I was like dream rider and played the game of capitalism in my head with no money  ::) ::) :-[  :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'(  ;D :o ;D  :( :(

cods wrote on Nov 17^th, 2014 at 9:40am:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Nov 17th, 2014 at 9:35am: Quote: ...............the US because people are embracing the socialist message in record numbers, particularly the younger generation .......... It's normally the younger people that like the ideals of socialism. Also poor people who see it as a way to easily improve their lives. The US has been too socialist for far too long. This has caused the problems there. “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.” Margaret Thatcher.

wake up  ;) ;)

Sprintcyclist wrote on Nov 17^th, 2014 at 9:35am:

Quote: ...............the US because people are embracing the socialist message in record numbers, particularly the younger generation .......... It's normally the younger people that like the ideals of socialism. Also poor people who see it as a way to easily improve their lives. The US has been too socialist for far too long. This has caused the problems there.

Capitalism needs money  ;) ;) i.e. socialism!

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 17^th, 2014 at 8:56am:

ian wrote on Nov 17th, 2014 at 8:46am: all  those socialist countries out there going so well with  their top life expectancies and standard of living and laughing at us capitalists. Yeah, just look at Norway. What a shithole.

social democracy, not socialist. Not too cluey about this are you mate?

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Nov 17^th, 2014 at 8:52am:

ian wrote on Nov 17th, 2014 at 8:46am: all  those socialist countries out there going so well with  their top life expectancies and standard of living and laughing at us capitalists. Typically Ian, you're confused about what socialism is because you never really looked into it in any intelligent way.  What wrong? Is your mind so impressionable that you cant trust to expose it to different thoughts. Its quite pathetic really.

no problem, educate me, show me 1 prosperous socialist country.

ian wrote on Nov 17^th, 2014 at 11:47am:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Nov 17th, 2014 at 8:52am: ian wrote on Nov 17th, 2014 at 8:46am: all  those socialist countries out there going so well with  their top life expectancies and standard of living and laughing at us capitalists. Typically Ian, you're confused about what socialism is because you never really looked into it in any intelligent way.  What wrong? Is your mind so impressionable that you cant trust to expose it to different thoughts. Its quite pathetic really.     no problem, educate me, show me 1 prosperous socialist country.

Australia
England
Germany
Any of the Nordic countries.
Even the US is, to an extent (a small extent)

ian wrote on Nov 17^th, 2014 at 11:46am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 17th, 2014 at 8:56am: ian wrote on Nov 17th, 2014 at 8:46am: all  those socialist countries out there going so well with  their top life expectancies and standard of living and laughing at us capitalists. Yeah, just look at Norway. What a shithole. social democracy, not socialist. Not too cluey about this are you mate?

You were the one who brought up "all those socialist countries". Strictly speaking, there is not a "socialist country" on earth - no, not even China. Cuba closer, but not really. The correct comparison you were so cynically attempting to make is between "us capitalists" and the only countries on earth who adopt true socialist values - and they are your 'social democracies'.

MumboJumbo wrote on Nov 17^th, 2014 at 11:52am:

ian wrote on Nov 17th, 2014 at 11:47am: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Nov 17th, 2014 at 8:52am: ian wrote on Nov 17th, 2014 at 8:46am: all  those socialist countries out there going so well with  their top life expectancies and standard of living and laughing at us capitalists. Typically Ian, you're confused about what socialism is because you never really looked into it in any intelligent way.  What wrong? Is your mind so impressionable that you cant trust to expose it to different thoughts. Its quite pathetic really.     no problem, educate me, show me 1 prosperous socialist country. Australia England Germany Any of the Nordic countries. Even the US is, to an extent (a small extent)

I would have called all of those democratic capitalist secular countries.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Nov 17^th, 2014 at 12:37pm:

MumboJumbo wrote on Nov 17th, 2014 at 11:52am: ian wrote on Nov 17th, 2014 at 11:47am: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Nov 17th, 2014 at 8:52am: ian wrote on Nov 17th, 2014 at 8:46am: all  those socialist countries out there going so well with  their top life expectancies and standard of living and laughing at us capitalists. Typically Ian, you're confused about what socialism is because you never really looked into it in any intelligent way.  What wrong? Is your mind so impressionable that you cant trust to expose it to different thoughts. Its quite pathetic really.     no problem, educate me, show me 1 prosperous socialist country. Australia England Germany Any of the Nordic countries. Even the US is, to an extent (a small extent) I would have called all of those democratic capitalist secular countries.

Oh, they are also white countries too.

MumboJumbo wrote on Nov 17^th, 2014 at 11:52am:

ian wrote on Nov 17th, 2014 at 11:47am: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Nov 17th, 2014 at 8:52am: ian wrote on Nov 17th, 2014 at 8:46am: all  those socialist countries out there going so well with  their top life expectancies and standard of living and laughing at us capitalists. Typically Ian, you're confused about what socialism is because you never really looked into it in any intelligent way.  What wrong? Is your mind so impressionable that you cant trust to expose it to different thoughts. Its quite pathetic really.     no problem, educate me, show me 1 prosperous socialist country. Australia England Germany Any of the Nordic countries. Even the US is, to an extent (a small extent)

oh dear, your depth of lack of understanding this topic almost exceeds gandalf. try another easier thread, maybe about the weather or something.

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Nov 17^th, 2014 at 11:41am:

Panther wrote on Nov 17th, 2014 at 9:41am: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Nov 17th, 2014 at 8:38am: .....people are embracing the socialist message in record numbers, particularly the younger generation...... Socialism has never succeeded long term, & is doomed to failure because it depends solely on taking money from the workers & wealth creators, & redistributes it to a permanent subculture that do not work for it, & ultimately never will. This is usually done by political parties, not simply a good-will gesture for the betterment of mankind, no, it's all done for the political gain of those that create the programs that redistribute the wealth --- the political parties. Eventually, the taxation increases astronomically, & businesses ultimately flee off-shore (it's happening now --here--in Australia), because less & less workers can be found to produce the wealth necessary to feed the starving engines of socialism. “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.” Though, in the short term it will thrive because the wealth needed is plentiful, & there never is a shortage of hands outstretched for something "FREE". The problem with capitalism is that eventually some smart guy realises a system called "money" is required!  Yeh, i wish I was like dream rider and played the game of capitalism in my head with no money

Wish all you want, 'till you're red & blue in the face, you'll never attain what I have, especially if Socialism is your vehicle of choice. http://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/BigToothSmile.gif

still waiting, 1 prosperous socialist country. Just 1.

....

Panther wrote on Nov 17^th, 2014 at 9:41am:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Nov 17th, 2014 at 8:38am: .....people are embracing the socialist message in record numbers, particularly the younger generation...... Socialism has never succeeded long term, & is doomed to failure because it depends solely on taking money from the workers & wealth creators, & redistributes it to a permanent subculture that do not work for it, & ultimately never will. This is usually done by political parties, not simply a good-will gesture for the betterment of mankind, no, it's all done for the political gain of those that create the programs that redistribute the wealth --- the political parties. Eventually, the taxation increases astronomically, & businesses ultimately flee off-shore (it's happening now --here--in Australia), because less & less workers can be found to produce the wealth necessary to feed the starving engines of socialism. “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.” Though, in the short term it will thrive because the wealth needed is plentiful, & there never is a shortage of hands outstretched for something "FREE".

Oh its socialism that cheats workers of the wealth they create is it?  These absurd distortions are becoming more regular which I'm glad to say means that capitalism is getting scared.  I certainly have to agree with the professor that in the last few years I've noticed a lot more favorable talk about socialism then I have known in a long long time.  You see DRx just cause you swallow the propaganda more readily does not mean that most people cant see that capitalism collapsed in 2008 and the only thing that brought it back to life was the peoples $$$$. You really are as bad as any North Korean automaton worshiping the dear leader.

cods wrote on Nov 17^th, 2014 at 9:40am:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Nov 17th, 2014 at 9:35am: Quote: ...............the US because people are embracing the socialist message in record numbers, particularly the younger generation .......... It's normally the younger people that like the ideals of socialism. Also poor people who see it as a way to easily improve their lives. The US has been too socialist for far too long. This has caused the problems there. “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.” Margaret Thatcher.

The problem with capitalism is that eventually someone Like Thatcher will end up in charge.

Panther wrote on Nov 17^th, 2014 at 12:41pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Nov 17th, 2014 at 11:41am: Panther wrote on Nov 17th, 2014 at 9:41am: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Nov 17th, 2014 at 8:38am: .....people are embracing the socialist message in record numbers, particularly the younger generation...... Socialism has never succeeded long term, & is doomed to failure because it depends solely on taking money from the workers & wealth creators, & redistributes it to a permanent subculture that do not work for it, & ultimately never will. This is usually done by political parties, not simply a good-will gesture for the betterment of mankind, no, it's all done for the political gain of those that create the programs that redistribute the wealth --- the political parties. Eventually, the taxation increases astronomically, & businesses ultimately flee off-shore (it's happening now --here--in Australia), because less & less workers can be found to produce the wealth necessary to feed the starving engines of socialism. “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.” Though, in the short term it will thrive because the wealth needed is plentiful, & there never is a shortage of hands outstretched for something "FREE". The problem with capitalism is that eventually some smart guy realises a system called "money" is required!  Yeh, i wish I was like dream rider and played the game of capitalism in my head with no money  Wish all you want, 'till you're red & blue in the face, you'll never attain what I have, especially if Socialism is your vehicle of choice. http://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/BigToothSmile.gif

Why does money have a serial number on it?

:D :D

Quote:

Record Numbers Turning To Socialism

Yes baby boomers are retiring in record numbers and moving to the pension.


Dnarever wrote on Nov 17^th, 2014 at 1:12pm:

The problem with capitalism is that eventually someone Like Thatcher will end up in charge.

...actually the problem with capitalism socialism is that eventually someone Like Thatcher will end up in charge.....otherwise the country goes bankrupt  :D

.....

bogarde73 wrote on Nov 17^th, 2014 at 9:26am:

I suppose all those millions who just voted the Republicans one of their best ever Congressional victories are part of your record numbers turning to socialism. Or don't the people in the US count in your fantasy?

I can only go on what I have heard about those results but many are saying that its due to low turnout from people who no longer have any confidence that you can fix things through the system (and I would agree with them) and if that is true (and I don't know one way or another) that result would not be inconsistent with what the professor is saying.  But don't you bother your simple little head about any of this boggie. Just you make sure to stop those boats. Oh year don't worry about the billions being ripped out of the heart of this country just STOP THOSE BOATS!!!!

The USA is that extreme in its capitalist position that they consider a position solidly right of centre to be socialist.

....

Sprintcyclist wrote on Nov 17^th, 2014 at 12:37pm:

MumboJumbo wrote on Nov 17th, 2014 at 11:52am: ian wrote on Nov 17th, 2014 at 11:47am: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Nov 17th, 2014 at 8:52am: ian wrote on Nov 17th, 2014 at 8:46am: all  those socialist countries out there going so well with  their top life expectancies and standard of living and laughing at us capitalists. Typically Ian, you're confused about what socialism is because you never really looked into it in any intelligent way.  What wrong? Is your mind so impressionable that you cant trust to expose it to different thoughts. Its quite pathetic really.     no problem, educate me, show me 1 prosperous socialist country. Australia England Germany Any of the Nordic countries. Even the US is, to an extent (a small extent) I would have called all of those democratic capitalist secular countries.

Cr@p. How often have we seen you claim those countries are socialists.You change when the argument suites you?   

....

Panther wrote on Nov 17^th, 2014 at 12:41pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Nov 17th, 2014 at 11:41am: Panther wrote on Nov 17th, 2014 at 9:41am: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Nov 17th, 2014 at 8:38am: .....people are embracing the socialist message in record numbers, particularly the younger generation...... Socialism has never succeeded long term, & is doomed to failure because it depends solely on taking money from the workers & wealth creators, & redistributes it to a permanent subculture that do not work for it, & ultimately never will. This is usually done by political parties, not simply a good-will gesture for the betterment of mankind, no, it's all done for the political gain of those that create the programs that redistribute the wealth --- the political parties. Eventually, the taxation increases astronomically, & businesses ultimately flee off-shore (it's happening now --here--in Australia), because less & less workers can be found to produce the wealth necessary to feed the starving engines of socialism. “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.” Though, in the short term it will thrive because the wealth needed is plentiful, & there never is a shortage of hands outstretched for something "FREE". The problem with capitalism is that eventually some smart guy realises a system called "money" is required!  Yeh, i wish I was like dream rider and played the game of capitalism in my head with no money  Wish all you want, 'till you're red & blue in the face, you'll never attain what I have, especially if Socialism is your vehicle of choice. http://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/BigToothSmile.gif

Sorry DRx but its not only horse who has noticed that you do a lot of living in your head. Even your avitar bespeaks of an extremely idiolized over exaggerated self image.   

....

ian wrote on Nov 17^th, 2014 at 12:41pm:

still waiting, 1 prosperous socialist country. Just 1.

Did it occur to you to actually do some reading on the subject.  It's clear that you have this notion of socialism that doesn't come from any kind of study or even any time spent on reflection but more about what you've heard others say and assumed to be true without any critical thinking.  Here, lets test it.  Did you watch the interview???? It was only a 12 minute interview but I'm guessing that if you'd watched it, it would have amounted to about as much time as you have spent critically examining that subject over your whole life time up until this point in time.  And that's what makes it so hard trying to have an intelligent discussion with you on the subject.  OK lets take your question "Name 1 prosperous socialist country?" My answer, China.  In 40/50 years that country went from a peasant rural subsistence economy to the worlds most successful industrialized nation on earth, with an economy tipped to soon edge out the US for first place.  And how was it built. A planned government run economy. Indeed, we humans know that things that are planned always (and I mean always) work better and more efficiently then things that are unplanned and random (am I going too fast for you sparky).  China's political system is totalitarian/oligarchic; run by a few and inevitably for the benefit for the few. That's why its political system of government is not acceptable to me. But its economic system, the socialist system that grew that economy from nothing was socialist. The Russians did the same from 1917 to the 1970s, the japanese did the same from 1850s to the 1900s and to a lesser extent india with its mixed economy and Australia and the UK with government run and owned instrumentalists (but since privatised) that made their respective countries prosperous and worked far better for the community then they ever have since privatisation.  I don't want socialism without a direct democracy but all the evidence strongly points in the direction that the combo of the 2 is far better at delivering prosperity to all the creators of wealth in the community and not just the few benefited by the corporate totalitarianism system thats running the world today.   

Panther wrote on Nov 17^th, 2014 at 9:41am:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Nov 17th, 2014 at 8:38am: .....people are embracing the socialist message in record numbers, particularly the younger generation...... Socialism has never succeeded long term, & is doomed to failure because it depends solely on taking money from the workers & wealth creators, & redistributes it to a permanent subculture that do not work for it, & ultimately never will. This is usually done by political parties, not simply a good-will gesture for the betterment of mankind, no, it's all done for the political gain of those that create the programs that redistribute the wealth --- the political parties. Eventually, the taxation increases astronomically, & businesses ultimately flee off-shore (it's happening now --here--in Australia), because less & less workers can be found to produce the wealth necessary to feed the starving engines of socialism. “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.” Though, in the short term it will thrive because the wealth needed is plentiful, & there never is a shortage of hands outstretched for something "FREE".

Please quote  the progenitor of your quote so we can see clearly how it fits into the socio-political spectrum.

Sounds like Thatcher to me - classically short-sighted and totally dumb in reality - what difference is there in taking from workers a tax that feeds their Mum and Pop in their retirement and that worker paying for the upkeep of Mum and Pop - other than that the load is spread in taxation in ALL countries across the entire spectrum of society - and a form of equality is attained (not achieved) by those with the most giving the most into that pool?

Let's put it in simple english:-

Joe Rich has a pair of rich parents who will retire and live a long and lovely life tripping down the Rhine or visiting Alaska for a multitude of dollars.

Now - if Joe Rich is to sustain his parents in the manner to which they have always been accustomed - he needs to put a hefty proportion of his income towards looking after dear old Mum and Dad - without whom he would be nobody.

How does that equate to tax?  Probably pretty damned close considering the Joe rich doesn't pay the full burden but gets one hell of a lot of free rides.

So would he rather his parents rely on him for their cash or accept a pension and maybe not attend Alaska to watch themating of the Intrepidous Wallegul which only occurs once every fifteen years and is only seen by those with heaps?  T

They watch it on National Geo channel instead....

Facts That No Honorable Socialist Can Intellectually Refute




Quote:

Socialism is the Big Lie of the twentieth century. While it promised prosperity, equality, and security, it delivered poverty, misery, and tyranny. Equality was achieved only in the sense that everyone was equal in his or her misery. In the same way that a Ponzi scheme or chain letter initially succeeds but eventually collapses, socialism may show early signs of success. But any accomplishments quickly fade as the fundamental deficiencies of central planning emerge. It is the initial illusion of success that gives government intervention its pernicious, seductive appeal. In the long run, socialism has always proven to be a formula for tyranny and misery. A pyramid scheme is ultimately unsustainable because it is based on faulty principles. Likewise, collectivism is unsustainable in the long run because it is a flawed theory. Socialism does not work because it is not consistent with fundamental principles of human behavior. The failure of socialism in countries around the world can be traced to one critical defect: it is a system that ignores incentives. In a capitalist economy, incentives are of the utmost importance. Market prices, the profit-and-loss system of accounting, and private property rights provide an efficient, interrelated system of incentives to guide and direct economic behavior. Capitalism is based on the theory that incentives matter! Under socialism, incentives either play a minimal role or are ignored totally. A centrally planned economy without market prices or profits, where property is owned by the state, is a system without an effective incentive mechanism to direct economic activity. By failing to emphasize incentives, socialism is a theory inconsistent with human nature and is therefore doomed to fail. Socialism is based on the theory that incentives don’t matter!..........Continued

A Pure Socialistic System always fails..... as will a Pure Capitalistic System, or a Pure Communistic System .......

No 'PURE' System can ever succeed.

IMHO only a 'Hybrid' System has a chance to succeed  ------  a market based system primarily instituted on a 'Modestly Regulated' Capitalism, but lightly tempered with the proper amount of 'Sustainable' Socialism.

Panther wrote on Nov 17^th, 2014 at 4:57pm:

A Pure Socialistic System always fails..... as will a Pure Capitalistic System, or a Pure Communistic System ....... No 'PURE' System can ever succeed. IMHO only a 'Hybrid' System has a chance to succeed  ------  a system primarily based on a 'Modestly Regulated' Capitalism, but lightly tempered with the proper amount of 'Sustainable' Socialism.

Now you've arrived at the nub of the matter, Grasshopper - your comment equally applies to Honourable Capitalists, Honourable Communists.. and every other Honourable -ist.....

THERE lies the truth of your comment - and you adherence to your thesis of a discriminatory reading causes your thesis to fail.

F.

This whole silly thread hinges on the definition of 'socialism'.  probably everyone except Andrei would promote some socialist policies in our otherwise strongly capitalist countries.  Australia for instance, is  undeniably a market capitalist economy but with a social conscience.  That does not make us a socialist country by any stretch of the argument.

Greece was a socialist economy.  And the reference to Norway cannot simply ignore the massive oil income.  Without it, Norway would be an economic desert. 

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 17^th, 2014 at 7:24pm:

This whole silly thread hinges on the definition of 'socialism'.  probably everyone except Andrei would promote some socialist policies in our otherwise strongly capitalist countries.  Australia for instance, is  undeniably a market capitalist economy but with a social conscience.  That does not make us a socialist country by any stretch of the argument. Greece was a socialist economy.  And the reference to Norway cannot simply ignore the massive oil income.  Without it, Norway would be an economic desert.

From the mouths of (intellectual) babes. Well said longy.


Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Nov 17^th, 2014 at 5:43pm:

Now you've arrived at the nub of the matter, Grasshopper - your comment equally applies to Honourable Capitalists, Honourable Communists.. and every other Honourable -ist..... THERE lies the truth of your comment - and you adherence to your thesis of a discriminatory reading causes your thesis to fail.

Well said, Master Grappler.

capitalism works great when socialism acts prevents it from failing

:D :D :D :D

.....

Panther wrote on Nov 17^th, 2014 at 4:57pm:

Facts That No Honorable Socialist Can Intellectually Refute Quote: Socialism is the Big Lie of the twentieth century. While it promised prosperity, equality, and security, it delivered poverty, misery, and tyranny. Equality was achieved only in the sense that everyone was equal in his or her misery. In the same way that a Ponzi scheme or chain letter initially succeeds but eventually collapses, socialism may show early signs of success. But any accomplishments quickly fade as the fundamental deficiencies of central planning emerge. It is the initial illusion of success that gives government intervention its pernicious, seductive appeal. In the long run, socialism has always proven to be a formula for tyranny and misery. A pyramid scheme is ultimately unsustainable because it is based on faulty principles. Likewise, collectivism is unsustainable in the long run because it is a flawed theory. Socialism does not work because it is not consistent with fundamental principles of human behavior. The failure of socialism in countries around the world can be traced to one critical defect: it is a system that ignores incentives. In a capitalist economy, incentives are of the utmost importance. Market prices, the profit-and-loss system of accounting, and private property rights provide an efficient, interrelated system of incentives to guide and direct economic behavior. Capitalism is based on the theory that incentives matter! Under socialism, incentives either play a minimal role or are ignored totally. A centrally planned economy without market prices or profits, where property is owned by the state, is a system without an effective incentive mechanism to direct economic activity. By failing to emphasize incentives, socialism is a theory inconsistent with human nature and is therefore doomed to fail. Socialism is based on the theory that incentives don’t matter!..........Continued A Pure Socialistic System always fails..... as will a Pure Capitalistic System, or a Pure Communistic System ....... No 'PURE' System can ever succeed. IMHO only a 'Hybrid' System has a chance to succeed  ------  a market based system primarily instituted on a 'Modestly Regulated' Capitalism, but lightly tempered with the proper amount of 'Sustainable' Socialism.

Yes yes the big lie of socialism as alleged by the lying capitalist.  The point is (and what this thread is about) that people "seem" now more then I have known before in my experience to be turning away from the extreme form of capitalism (the so called lightly tempered capitalism you speak of) that we have now known for at least the last 3 decades. Now if that's true and the momentum continues to build, I reckon that's great news for all of us because despite what you say not only has capitalism regularly collapsed over the centuries (and the people made to bail it out and resurrect it - try that with your house mortgage), even when its working at its optimum it fails the 99% of us. As indeed the last three decades has IMO clearly demonstrated. Up till now Australia's resources and not her capitalist system has saved us from the hardships being suffered by the rest of the world so we may be in for a shock as we progressively lose more jobs and living standards to serve the bottomless greed of the few.  Ultimately capitalism cuts its own throat. The question is, how soon? 

North American Politics: Capitalism
Asian Politics: Communism
Oceanic Politics: Socialism (worlds most prolifically increasing 'Tourism' region!)
Sahulian Politics: Republicanism (Aussies talking crap in Pubs)
South American Politics: Draconialism
European Politics: Egalitarian (formerly owned by Australia, until 'stolen' by the British to 'blanket' Europe with).
African Politics: Nationalism
Middle-East Politics: Bureaucratic ...anything with heaps of paperwork in it!


Capitalism: Where the Minority are Rich
and the Majority have heaps of sex and kids!

Northern Hemisphere: Majority Breeds (physically strong) and Minority Thinks (mentally weak)

Southern Hemisphere: Majority Thinks (mentally strong) and Minority Breeds (physically weak).

KNOW YOUR WORLD !
>:(

Some of you really could use a crash-course in what socialism and communism mean, AND the vast differences between the two.

They are NOT, as some of you seem to think(?), the same thing. Not even similar.

Socialism IS the system which will save civilization when (NOT if) corporate capitalism falls.

The idiots may laugh and deny at their peril.

John Smith wrote on Nov 17^th, 2014 at 8:20pm:

capitalism works great when socialism acts prevents it from failing :D :D :D :D

close but no cigar.  socialist policies don't stop capitalism from failing (did you miss the fall of communism or something??) but rather it prevents some people from being crushed by its powerful success.

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 18^th, 2014 at 8:04am:

John Smith wrote on Nov 17th, 2014 at 8:20pm: capitalism works great when socialism acts prevents it from failing :D :D :D :D close but no cigar.  socialist policies don't stop capitalism from failing (did you miss the fall of communism or something??) but rather it prevents some people from being crushed by its powerful success.

as long as the tax dollars are there to stop it failing, right?  :D :D :D :D :D

Kat wrote on Nov 18^th, 2014 at 6:57am:

Some of you really could use a crash-course in what socialism and communism mean, AND the vast differences between the two. They are NOT, as some of you seem to think(?), the same thing. Not even similar. Socialism IS the system which will save civilization when (NOT if) corporate capitalism falls. The idiots may laugh and deny at their peril.

OK, educate me.

My understanding is that if it has any good outcomes, it's socialism.
Any bad outcomes, it's communism. 

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 18^th, 2014 at 8:04am:

John Smith wrote on Nov 17th, 2014 at 8:20pm: capitalism works great when socialism acts prevents it from failing :D :D :D :D close but no cigar.  socialist policies don't stop capitalism from failing (did you miss the fall of communism or something??) but rather it prevents some people from being crushed by its powerful success.

Which would make sense if it bore any relationship to the facts as evidenced by the historical record, in particular the most recent example in 2008 when capitalism cut its throat and the people were made to resurrect the failed system and return into the hands of those perpetrators of human misery free of charge.  But of course longLiar has absolutely no regard for the facts.   

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 18^th, 2014 at 8:04am:

John Smith wrote on Nov 17th, 2014 at 8:20pm: capitalism works great when socialism acts prevents it from failing :D :D :D :D close but no cigar.  socialist policies don't stop capitalism from failing (did you miss the fall of communism or something??) but rather it prevents some people from being crushed by its powerful success.

Which would make sense if it bore any relationship to the facts as evidenced by the historical record, in particular the most recent example in 2008 when capitalism cut its throat and the people were made to resurrect the failed system and return into the hands of those perpetrators of human misery free of charge.  But of course longLiar has absolutely no regard for the facts.   

... wrote on Nov 18^th, 2014 at 8:23am:

Kat wrote on Nov 18th, 2014 at 6:57am: Some of you really could use a crash-course in what socialism and communism mean, AND the vast differences between the two. They are NOT, as some of you seem to think(?), the same thing. Not even similar. Socialism IS the system which will save civilization when (NOT if) corporate capitalism falls. The idiots may laugh and deny at their peril. OK, educate me. My understanding is that if it has any good outcomes, it's socialism. Any bad outcomes, it's communism.

Well since you acknowledge that you require education on the subject, here's an idea.  Why don't you educate yourself.  yeah, maybe even read a book.  You obviously already have your conclusions in your mind, without having really given any thought to the matter.  Is it genuine when you say educate me.  Well, theres an interview posted at the beginning of this thread that goes a long way to explaining some of the basics. I'll take it then that you'll watch it or you just another North Korean wannabe automaton who made up his mind from things told to him by those who have an interest in keeping him ignorant.  Educate yourself!!!!

... wrote on Nov 18^th, 2014 at 8:23am:

Kat wrote on Nov 18th, 2014 at 6:57am: Some of you really could use a crash-course in what socialism and communism mean, AND the vast differences between the two. They are NOT, as some of you seem to think(?), the same thing. Not even similar. Socialism IS the system which will save civilization when (NOT if) corporate capitalism falls. The idiots may laugh and deny at their peril. OK, educate me. My understanding is that if it has any good outcomes, it's socialism. Any bad outcomes, it's communism.

Well since you acknowledge that you require education on the subject, here's an idea.  Why don't you educate yourself.  yeah, maybe even read a book.  You obviously already have your conclusions in your mind, without having really given any thought to the matter.  Is it genuine when you say educate me.  Well, theres an interview posted at the beginning of this thread that goes a long way to explaining some of the basics. I'll take it then that you'll watch it or you just another North Korean wannabe automaton who made up his mind from things told to him by those who have an interest in keeping him ignorant.  Educate yourself!!!!

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Nov 18^th, 2014 at 8:41am:

... wrote on Nov 18th, 2014 at 8:23am: Kat wrote on Nov 18th, 2014 at 6:57am: Some of you really could use a crash-course in what socialism and communism mean, AND the vast differences between the two. They are NOT, as some of you seem to think(?), the same thing. Not even similar. Socialism IS the system which will save civilization when (NOT if) corporate capitalism falls. The idiots may laugh and deny at their peril. OK, educate me. My understanding is that if it has any good outcomes, it's socialism. Any bad outcomes, it's communism.  Well since you acknowledge that you require education on the subject, here's an idea.  Why don't you educate yourself.  yeah, maybe even read a book.  You obviously already have your conclusions in your mind, without having really given any thought to the matter.  Is it genuine when you say educate me.  Well, theres an interview posted at the beginning of this thread that goes a long way to explaining some of the basics. I'll take it then that you'll watch it or you just another North Korean wannabe automaton who made up his mind from things told to him by those who have an interest in keeping him ignorant.  Educate yourself!!!!

Translation:  I don't know either.

MumboJumbo wrote on Nov 17^th, 2014 at 7:35pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 17th, 2014 at 7:24pm: This whole silly thread hinges on the definition of 'socialism'.  probably everyone except Andrei would promote some socialist policies in our otherwise strongly capitalist countries.  Australia for instance, is  undeniably a market capitalist economy but with a social conscience.  That does not make us a socialist country by any stretch of the argument. Greece was a socialist economy.  And the reference to Norway cannot simply ignore the massive oil income.  Without it, Norway would be an economic desert.  From the mouths of (intellectual) babes. Well said longy. Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Nov 17th, 2014 at 5:43pm: Now you've arrived at the nub of the matter, Grasshopper - your comment equally applies to Honourable Capitalists, Honourable Communists.. and every other Honourable -ist..... THERE lies the truth of your comment - and you adherence to your thesis of a discriminatory reading causes your thesis to fail. Well said, Master Grappler.

It's always the failing of ideologists like Thatcher, Regan, Stalin, Pol Pot and so forth that they fail to apply the same values and standards to everyone of whatever inclination - and thus create without fail a situation of confrontation, hostilities, and trumped-up causes for exterminating the 'other' side.

I would hardly have said that Thatcher's Britain was in any way 'socialistic' in the extreme - no more than we are/were here in Australia - and the long-term harm wrought by her silly and selfish policies is apparent to this day.

To revert to the Joe rich concept - there is a point beyond which a person has more than adequate money to get on - and it is at that point (those points on the sliding income tax scale)  is considered ABLE - or indeed MORE than ABLE - to pay extra into the common coffers for social security, health and so forth.

Let's take our Andrei (purported) - he claims an income that has varied over the time I've been here between $250k and $500k - and claims for his wife the same.  Therefore he claims his family unit to be earning $500k-$1m per annum (and all the while cheating tax with trusts, offshoring of work performed HERE in reality, tricks like altering the payment arrangement between self and company, and being harboured in a relative tax haven - whose people, BTW, in many areas , have an unemployment rate of 26%, and whom he heartily despises.

Now how much does Lord Andrei and Lady Andrei The Mythical of OzPol actually NEED to get by?

Therefore it is mandatory that they contribute to the public coffers at a much higher rate.  I prefer, personally, Thatcher's 80% that she demolished as being too much of a burden on those who earned ten times the income of the average salary earner.

We'll accept 48%, Andrei, for every bit of work you do that relates to Oz.... Deemed Offshore Industry Contribution Tax.

Take it up with your pirate bosses hiding in Ireland and our ATO.... I'm sure they'll accommodate you well....

John Smith wrote on Nov 18^th, 2014 at 8:23am:

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 18th, 2014 at 8:04am: John Smith wrote on Nov 17th, 2014 at 8:20pm: capitalism works great when socialism acts prevents it from failing :D :D :D :D close but no cigar.  socialist policies don't stop capitalism from failing (did you miss the fall of communism or something??) but rather it prevents some people from being crushed by its powerful success. as long as the tax dollars are there to stop it failing, right?  :D :D :D :D :D

exactly: it's all subsidised- greasing the palms of industry as  they say! Then there's the idea of a 'stick-up' but live and let live and all that  ::) ::)

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 17^th, 2014 at 7:24pm:

This whole silly thread hinges on the definition of 'socialism'.  probably everyone except Andrei would promote some socialist policies in our otherwise strongly capita

of course it does, and the definition of socialism is in  the dictionary for all to see. Hitler called himself a socialist, was he?

Of course, Thatcher and Co were the ultimate socialists - the were more than happy for the public purse to pay for their upkeep in every way.. but of course that's a different story....

**coughs** that's an Entitlement!  And obviously well-earned, unlike Jeb The Coal Miner who spent his days underground in filth and water busting a gut.... leaning bastard that he was....

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 18^th, 2014 at 8:04am:

John Smith wrote on Nov 17th, 2014 at 8:20pm: capitalism works great when socialism acts prevents it from failing :D :D :D :D close but no cigar.  socialist policies don't stop capitalism from failing (did you miss the fall of communism or something??) but rather it prevents some people from being crushed by its powerful success.

A strange brew of words: an acknowedgement of the subject of externality, good and bad (!!almost) at once.

The depression of the 30s caused changes to be made to prevent chaotic market swings that lead to such things as multiple mass family suicide murders. Then the land was seen as too hard to work for the majority and university was made affordable- through subsidy of course- so that all civilisation could benefit.

It's all subsidised- yet fools like liberal voting abbott and howard lovers pretend mortgages don't exist... like seriously: most wealth is inherited- if you don't invest then the river stagnates and dies.

**kicks crap out of page....**

http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/fighting/ass-kicking.gif

Oh well, I guess ill never know the  difference between communism and socialism.

... wrote on Nov 18^th, 2014 at 12:46pm:

Oh well, I guess ill never know the  difference between communism and socialism.

Communism is Socialism on steroids. Socialism is happy to coexist with Capitalism because Capitalism acts as the provider. Communism wants a complete end to Capitalism. Private ownership is fine with Socialism, it's not under Communism.

It_is_the_Darkness wrote on Nov 17^th, 2014 at 11:52pm:

North American Politics: Capitalism Asian Politics: Communism Oceanic Politics: Socialism (worlds most prolifically increasing 'Tourism' region!) Sahulian Politics: Republicanism (Aussies talking crap in Pubs) South American Politics: Draconialism European Politics: Egalitarian (formerly owned by Australia, until 'stolen' by the British to 'blanket' Europe with). African Politics: Nationalism Middle-East Politics: Bureaucratic ...anything with heaps of paperwork in it! Capitalism: Where the Minority are Rich and the Majority have heaps of sex and kids! Northern Hemisphere: Majority Breeds (physically strong) and Minority Thinks (mentally weak) Southern Hemisphere: Majority Thinks (mentally strong) and Minority Breeds (physically weak). KNOW YOUR WORLD ! >:(

Life_goes_on wrote on Nov 18^th, 2014 at 1:07pm:

... wrote on Nov 18th, 2014 at 12:46pm: Oh well, I guess ill never know the  difference between communism and socialism. Communism is Socialism on steroids. Socialism is happy to coexist with Capitalism because Capitalism acts as the provider. Communism wants a complete end to Capitalism. Private ownership is fine with Socialism, it's not under Communism.

i agree with that.

John Smith wrote on Nov 17^th, 2014 at 8:20pm:

capitalism works great when socialism acts prevents it from failing

http://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/exitstageleft.gif.....It's exactly the other way around Johno, except the Socialists never show enough restraint,
& unfortunately always overextend their credit, continually taxing & borrowing, to a point that even
the best Capitalists can barely save their 'drunken sailor' like spendthrift asses.

Ever hear of a place called ................ EUROPE??..... http://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/exitstageright.gif..... http://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/yes.gif

....

... wrote on Nov 18^th, 2014 at 12:46pm:

Oh well, I guess ill never know the  difference between communism and socialism.

Just a simple wikipedia search away. Can he manage it.  Wiki what???

Panther wrote on Nov 18^th, 2014 at 2:30pm:

John Smith wrote on Nov 17th, 2014 at 8:20pm: capitalism works great when socialism acts prevents it from failing http://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/exitstageleft.gif.....It's exactly the other way around Johno, except the Socialists never show enough restraint, & unfortunately always overextend their credit, continually taxing & borrowing, to a point that even the best Capitalists can barely save their 'drunken sailor' like spendthrift asses. ..... http://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/exitstageright.gif..... http://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/yes.gif

At least with this guy you know you're dealing with someone you know got his education word of mouth. 

Panther wrote on Nov 18^th, 2014 at 2:30pm:

John Smith wrote on Nov 17th, 2014 at 8:20pm: capitalism works great when socialism acts prevents it from failing http://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/exitstageleft.gif.....It's exactly the other way around Johno, except the Socialists never show enough restraint, & unfortunately always overextend their credit, continually taxing & borrowing, to a point that even the best Capitalists can barely save their 'drunken sailor' like spendthrift asses. ..... http://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/exitstageright.gif..... http://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/yes.gif

At least with this guy you know you're dealing with someone you know got his education word of mouth. 

Hey Spartacus.....ya got a stutterin' problem.....need ta say everythin' twice?? http://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/taunt.gif

There's even a movement in Israel towards socialism, which I believe is gaining national momentum. I'm not sure what it's called though.  National something or other.

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Nov 18^th, 2014 at 2:39pm:

... wrote on Nov 18th, 2014 at 12:46pm: Oh well, I guess ill never know the  difference between communism and socialism. Just a simple wikipedia search away. Can he manage it.  Wiki what???

The results from wiki and google searches are wishy washy  unsatisfying.   Thanks to life goes on for providing a distinction that warrants consideration

Panther wrote on Nov 18^th, 2014 at 2:30pm:

John Smith wrote on Nov 17th, 2014 at 8:20pm: capitalism works great when socialism acts prevents it from failing http://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/exitstageleft.gif.....It's exactly the other way around Johno, except the Socialists never show enough restraint, & unfortunately always overextend their credit, continually taxing & borrowing, to a point that even the best Capitalists can barely save their 'drunken sailor' like spendthrift asses. Ever hear of a place called ................ EUROPE??..... http://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/exitstageright.gif..... http://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/yes.gif

shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh dont tell him where that money they throw at everything comes from....lets see $40m for a football game??



In December 2008, Federal minister for sport Kate Ellis announced that the federal government would give Football Federation Australia $45.6 million[30] to fund its World Cup bid preparation

WAWWW we didnt win...


dont forget they also praise NORWAY as the country of choice.. you know the one "filthy  rich "selling nasty oil that is killing the planet... ;D ;D ;D..

it makes sense to a lot of labs..

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Nov 17^th, 2014 at 2:18pm:

ian wrote on Nov 17th, 2014 at 12:41pm: still waiting, 1 prosperous socialist country. Just 1. Did it occur to you to actually do some reading on the subject.  It's clear that you have this notion of socialism that doesn't come from any kind of study or even any time spent on reflection but more about what you've heard others say and assumed to be true without any critical thinking.  Here, lets test it.  Did you watch the interview???? It was only a 12 minute interview but I'm guessing that if you'd watched it, it would have amounted to about as much time as you have spent critically examining that subject over your whole life time up until this point in time.  And that's what makes it so hard trying to have an intelligent discussion with you on the subject.  OK lets take your question "Name 1 prosperous socialist country?" My answer, China.  In 40/50 years that country went from a peasant rural subsistence economy to the worlds most successful industrialized nation on earth, with an economy tipped to soon edge out the US for first place.  And how was it built. A planned government run economy. Indeed, we humans know that things that are planned always (and I mean always) work better and more efficiently then things that are unplanned and random (am I going too fast for you sparky).  China's political system is totalitarian/oligarchic; run by a few and inevitably for the benefit for the few. That's why its political system of government is not acceptable to me. But its economic system, the socialist system that grew that economy from nothing was socialist. The Russians did the same from 1917 to the 1970s, the japanese did the same from 1850s to the 1900s and to a lesser extent india with its mixed economy and Australia and the UK with government run and owned instrumentalists (but since privatised) that made their respective countries prosperous and worked far better for the community then they ever have since privatisation.  I don't want socialism without a direct democracy but all the evidence strongly points in the direction that the combo of the 2 is far better at delivering prosperity to all the creators of wealth in the community and not just the few benefited by the corporate totalitarianism system thats running the world today.

Never been to China then? Thought so, its a 3rd world spewthole you birdbrain, like the rest of these countries you mention, you naive little twerp.

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Nov 18^th, 2014 at 10:36am:

Of course, Thatcher and Co were the ultimate socialists - the were more than happy for the public purse to pay for their upkeep in every way.. but of course that's a different story.... **coughs** that's an Entitlement!  And obviously well-earned, unlike Jeb The Coal Miner who spent his days underground in filth and water busting a gut.... leaning bastard that he was....

what a stupid statement.  what were they supposed to do... work for free????

dumb as...

Nobody else gets salary at max rate plus full keep.... and then pontificates about how someone else is getting a small snippet to survive on from the same till.....

The point is they are the ultimate socialists and happy to accept from the same till.. if not let them work it as a private enterprise offering advice to government.

Dumb as...

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Nov 18^th, 2014 at 5:25pm:

Nobody else gets salary at max rate plus full keep.... and then pontificates about how someone else is getting a small snippet to survive on from the same till..... The point is they are the ultimate socialists and happy to accept from the same till.. if not let them work it as a private enterprise offering advice to government. Dumb as...

This is an interesting argument, Maggie has snuck into the socialist system as a double agent hell bent on destroying it from the inside out.   ;D

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Nov 18^th, 2014 at 5:25pm:

Nobody else gets salary at max rate plus full keep.... and then pontificates about how someone else is getting a small snippet to survive on from the same till..... The point is they are the ultimate socialists and happy to accept from the same till.. if not let them work it as a private enterprise offering advice to government. Dumb as...

you usually come up with stupid crap and this is dumber than usual.  referring to thatcher as a socialist is like referring to the Pope as an atheist - which I am sure you will at some stage do.

perhaps you should investigate the meaning of the term 'socialist' and you may find that taking a govt salary is not the definition.

dope.

You simply miss the point - as usual.


All right then - Thatcher was the ultimate Fascist - more so than Adolph Hitler... and a rapist of her own industries and people for her own benefit.... and all out of the public purse like any true socio-fascist....

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Nov 18^th, 2014 at 6:00pm:

You simply miss the point - as usual. All right then - Thatcher was the ultimate Fascist - more so than Adolph Hitler... and a rapist of her own industries and people for her own benefit.... and all out of the public purse like any true socio-fascist....

you aren't making a coherent 'point'.  IN fact, you rarely do.  this time is no different.

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 18^th, 2014 at 6:10pm:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Nov 18th, 2014 at 6:00pm: You simply miss the point - as usual. All right then - Thatcher was the ultimate Fascist - more so than Adolph Hitler... and a rapist of her own industries and people for her own benefit.... and all out of the public purse like any true socio-fascist.... you aren't making a coherent 'point'.  IN fact, you rarely do.  this time is no different.

Hi Longy,
have you ever read one of Maggie's books?

Bobby. wrote on Nov 18^th, 2014 at 6:15pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 18th, 2014 at 6:10pm: Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Nov 18th, 2014 at 6:00pm: You simply miss the point - as usual. All right then - Thatcher was the ultimate Fascist - more so than Adolph Hitler... and a rapist of her own industries and people for her own benefit.... and all out of the public purse like any true socio-fascist.... you aren't making a coherent 'point'.  IN fact, you rarely do.  this time is no different. Hi Longy, have you ever read one of Maggie's books?

no. have you?  do you think she is a socialist?

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 18^th, 2014 at 6:25pm:

Bobby. wrote on Nov 18th, 2014 at 6:15pm: longweekend58 wrote on Nov 18th, 2014 at 6:10pm: Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Nov 18th, 2014 at 6:00pm: You simply miss the point - as usual. All right then - Thatcher was the ultimate Fascist - more so than Adolph Hitler... and a rapist of her own industries and people for her own benefit.... and all out of the public purse like any true socio-fascist.... you aren't making a coherent 'point'.  IN fact, you rarely do.  this time is no different. Hi Longy, have you ever read one of Maggie's books? no. have you?  do you think she is a socialist?

She was a far right winger - the opposite of a socialist.

No - I haven't read even one word of her books.
It thought is was compulsory reading for right wingers like you?

She is the type of socialist who totally feels entitled to draw deeply from the same public purse that she so roundly criticises for its method of accessing money. That sounds like a socialist in disguise to me, but ONLY the kind that loves socialism when it suits them...  same as a business that expects handouts from the same till is socialist.... with the exception that the business doesn't expect to be totally supported in style from that till - unlike Maggie etc....

Did she accept a loss of pay at the same time as Veteran pensions were lowered?  Will Tony accept a loss of salary to compensate for no penalty for Sunday and out of hours work?

Not On Your Nellie!

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Nov 18^th, 2014 at 6:35pm:

She is the type of socialist who totally feels entitled to draw deeply from the same public purse that she so roundly criticises for its method of accessing money. That sounds like a socialist in disguise to me, but ONLY the kind that loves socialism when it suits them...  same as a business that expects handouts from the same till is socialist.... with the exception that the business doesn't expect to be totally supported in style from that till - unlike Maggie etc.... Did she accept a loss of pay at the same time as Veteran pensions were lowered?  Will Tony accept a loss of salary to compensate for no penalty for Sunday and out of hours work? Not On Your Nellie!

Tony gets paid more than Obama.

How's that for a rip-off?

Panther wrote on Nov 18^th, 2014 at 2:30pm:

John Smith wrote on Nov 17th, 2014 at 8:20pm: capitalism works great when socialism acts prevents it from failing http://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/exitstageleft.gif.....It's exactly the other way around Johno, except the Socialists never show enough restraint, & unfortunately always overextend their credit, continually taxing & borrowing, to a point that even the best Capitalists can barely save their 'drunken sailor' like spendthrift asses. Ever hear of a place called ................ EUROPE??..... http://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/exitstageright.gif..... http://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/yes.gif

I see you've been reading the liberal handbook again .....

cods wrote on Nov 18^th, 2014 at 3:03pm:

Panther wrote on Nov 18th, 2014 at 2:30pm: John Smith wrote on Nov 17th, 2014 at 8:20pm: capitalism works great when socialism acts prevents it from failing http://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/exitstageleft.gif.....It's exactly the other way around Johno, except the Socialists never show enough restraint, & unfortunately always overextend their credit, continually taxing & borrowing, to a point that even the best Capitalists can barely save their 'drunken sailor' like spendthrift asses. Ever hear of a place called ................ EUROPE??..... http://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/exitstageright.gif..... http://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/yes.gif shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh dont tell him where that money they throw at everything comes from....lets see $40m for a football game?? only an idiot would call the world cup 'a football game' In December 2008, Federal minister for sport Kate Ellis announced that the federal government would give Football Federation Australia $45.6 million[30] to fund its World Cup bid preparation clever girl, she saved us millions... the Sydney olympic committee spent over $75m in it's bid to win the olympics in 2000 ......  do you realise that the world cup has a larger following than the olympics? WAWWW we didnt win... no one wins every bid dont forget they also praise NORWAY as the country of choice.. you know the one "filthy  rich "selling nasty oil that is killing the planet... ;D ;D ;D.. you seem confused .... no one has said you can't sell oil it makes sense to a lot of labs..

ahh, now I see the problem, common sense always confuses you doesn't it?

Bobby. wrote on Nov 18^th, 2014 at 6:41pm:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Nov 18th, 2014 at 6:35pm: She is the type of socialist who totally feels entitled to draw deeply from the same public purse that she so roundly criticises for its method of accessing money. That sounds like a socialist in disguise to me, but ONLY the kind that loves socialism when it suits them...  same as a business that expects handouts from the same till is socialist.... with the exception that the business doesn't expect to be totally supported in style from that till - unlike Maggie etc.... Did she accept a loss of pay at the same time as Veteran pensions were lowered?  Will Tony accept a loss of salary to compensate for no penalty for Sunday and out of hours work? Not On Your Nellie! Tony gets paid more than Obama. How's that for a rip-off?

Obama gets EVERYTHING - absolutely everything - provided for him.  the PM does not.  and Obama will earn $10M a year in speaking fees when he leaves. Howard gets about $100K and he gets more than the rest.

John Smith wrote on Nov 18^th, 2014 at 7:16pm:

cods wrote on Nov 18th, 2014 at 3:03pm: Panther wrote on Nov 18th, 2014 at 2:30pm: John Smith wrote on Nov 17th, 2014 at 8:20pm: capitalism works great when socialism acts prevents it from failing http://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/exitstageleft.gif.....It's exactly the other way around Johno, except the Socialists never show enough restraint, & unfortunately always overextend their credit, continually taxing & borrowing, to a point that even the best Capitalists can barely save their 'drunken sailor' like spendthrift asses. Ever hear of a place called ................ EUROPE??..... http://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/exitstageright.gif..... http://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/yes.gif shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh dont tell him where that money they throw at everything comes from....lets see $40m for a football game?? only an idiot would call the world cup 'a football game' In December 2008, Federal minister for sport Kate Ellis announced that the federal government would give Football Federation Australia $45.6 million[30] to fund its World Cup bid preparation clever girl, she saved us millions... the Sydney olympic committee spent over $75m in it's bid to win the olympics in 2000 ......  do you realise that the world cup has a larger following than the olympics? WAWWW we didnt win... no one wins every bid dont forget they also praise NORWAY as the country of choice.. you know the one "filthy  rich "selling nasty oil that is killing the planet... ;D ;D ;D.. you seem confused .... no one has said you can't sell oil it makes sense to a lot of labs.. ahh, now I see the problem, common sense always confuses you doesn't it?

the difference is rather obvious.  we have NO CHANCE of ever hosting the world cup and it was $45M completely wasted.  But the Olympics are a different matter.  we have hosted it twice to great acclaim.  It was always a good chance but the world cup is a ZERO CHANCE.

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 18^th, 2014 at 7:28pm:

the difference is rather obvious.  we have NO CHANCE of ever hosting the world cup and it was $45M completely wasted.  But the Olympics are a different matter.  we have hosted it twice to great acclaim.  It was always a good chance but the world cup is a ZERO CHANCE.

what a load of rubbish ... the only time you have no chance is when you aren't in the running. Of course we had a chance.

John Smith wrote on Nov 18^th, 2014 at 7:31pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 18th, 2014 at 7:28pm: the difference is rather obvious.  we have NO CHANCE of ever hosting the world cup and it was $45M completely wasted.  But the Olympics are a different matter.  we have hosted it twice to great acclaim.  It was always a good chance but the world cup is a ZERO CHANCE. what a load of rubbish ... the only time you have no chance is when you aren't in the running. Of course we had a chance.

not for the soccer world cup.  not a hope in hell.  and you know it. even the US don't get the world cup.

The difference between socialism and communism, according to Marx, is that in socialism the state takes control of the means of production, and communism was meant to be the next step; that the state would wither away and people would produce according to their needs and abilities. For example, a fisherman would produce fishing gear and then spend his days fishing etc. It's a romantic view of life where each person lives according to what skills they have and then spend the rest of their time being leisurely. State run industry (socialism) was only a temporary step for Marx to reach communism. 

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Nov 18^th, 2014 at 8:35pm:

The difference between socialism and communism, according to Marx, is that in socialism the state takes control of the means of production, and communism was meant to be the next step; that the state would wither away and people would produce according to their needs and abilities. For example, a fisherman would produce fishing gear and then spend his days fishing etc. It's a romantic view of life where each person lives according to what skills they have and then spend the rest of their time being leisurely. State run industry (socialism) was only a temporary step for Marx to reach communism.

Hmm - very utopian.....

Bobby. wrote on Nov 18^th, 2014 at 6:35pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 18th, 2014 at 6:25pm: Bobby. wrote on Nov 18th, 2014 at 6:15pm: longweekend58 wrote on Nov 18th, 2014 at 6:10pm: Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Nov 18th, 2014 at 6:00pm: You simply miss the point - as usual. All right then - Thatcher was the ultimate Fascist - more so than Adolph Hitler... and a rapist of her own industries and people for her own benefit.... and all out of the public purse like any true socio-fascist.... you aren't making a coherent 'point'.  IN fact, you rarely do.  this time is no different. Hi Longy, have you ever read one of Maggie's books? no. have you?  do you think she is a socialist? She was a far right winger - the opposite of a socialist. No - I haven't read even one word of her books. It thought is was compulsory reading for right wingers like you?

No one liked her but shutting down coal mines is really kind of progressive I would thought!

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Nov 18^th, 2014 at 8:35pm:

The difference between socialism and communism, according to Marx, is that in socialism the state takes control of the means of production, and communism was meant to be the next step; that the state would wither away and people would produce according to their needs and abilities. For example, a fisherman would produce fishing gear and then spend his days fishing etc. It's a romantic view of life where each person lives according to what skills they have and then spend the rest of their time being leisurely. State run industry (socialism) was only a temporary step for Marx to reach communism.

It did always seem like some kind of non-government dream that was never of course going to be allowed by any government!

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 18^th, 2014 at 7:26pm:

Bobby. wrote on Nov 18th, 2014 at 6:41pm: Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Nov 18th, 2014 at 6:35pm: She is the type of socialist who totally feels entitled to draw deeply from the same public purse that she so roundly criticises for its method of accessing money. That sounds like a socialist in disguise to me, but ONLY the kind that loves socialism when it suits them...  same as a business that expects handouts from the same till is socialist.... with the exception that the business doesn't expect to be totally supported in style from that till - unlike Maggie etc.... Did she accept a loss of pay at the same time as Veteran pensions were lowered?  Will Tony accept a loss of salary to compensate for no penalty for Sunday and out of hours work? Not On Your Nellie! Tony gets paid more than Obama. How's that for a rip-off? Obama gets EVERYTHING - absolutely everything - provided for him.  the PM does not.  and Obama will earn $10M a year in speaking fees when he leaves. Howard gets about $100K and he gets more than the rest.

That's a red herring -
if Abbott was worth more than Obama he could make money from speaking fees -
only no one wants to listen to him.