what exactly are G8 Protesters protesting about?

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

all you have in this thread are a couple of people on the right shouting very vague abuse or accuse people of communism when confronted with arguments, and then back slapping each other. no attempt to actually confront anything on evidence or merit.

Ya that's it really. Sums up a lot of the right-wing posters quite well: They don't give a toss about logical or factual accuracy of arguments, they just try to 'win' based on grouping up together, to pour as much condescension on the opposition as possible. It's trying to win a debate based on social reinforcement.

I don't believe for a second either, that they don't see it themselves, for what it is; it is too consistently engaged in, over a long period of time, in precisely that pattern.

Jonny7 wrote: »

Don't give me this left right crap.. it's reality. You think those G8 protesters are out there debating effective realistic solutions to these problems?

All the solutions are already known, it is politics and ideology that are being used as weapons to block any change (as has always been), and you'll find Libertarians and the like, taken as useful idiots/pawns, used to try and create political pressure against any necessary reforms (like we see right in this thread - opposing protests; not even protests over a specific issue, but opposing protests in general).

Why on earth do you think virtually all right-wing politics (especially the Libertarian stuff), is funded almost entirely by wholly corrupt businessmen/oligarchs, who have been making arséloads of money corrupting politics for decades?

It's right in your face; if you research the history of almost all of the founding right-wing economists since WWII, they are up to their necks in connections to wholly corrupt corporations and think-tank networks.

seamus wrote: »

So because people were employed once before, there's no reason why they can't be employed again?

Perhaps they should just start building 80,000 houses per year again, and then tear them down when no-one wants them, then start again so that we can keep full employment?

I love how you make the claim that not being able to think of things for the unemployed to do is because one lacks imagination, while offering no tasks of your own which they can do.

I don't deny that there are no doubt a few gaps that can be plugged by forcing people to do work to claim their dole, but that doesn't necessarily make it desirable or economically viable. In many cases it's actually cheaper to pay someone their dole for doing nothing, than to pay them the dole to work, because there are significant employer costs.

The state should never be an employer of last resort. It results in bloat and stagnation.

Here we go, spinning around the same point already addressed: If you can't think of any other period in recent history, where Ireland has had more people employed than now, without it being put into a construction boom, then you've got a very bad grasp of history.

By the argument you're trying to pull, you'd think Ireland will permanently stay at its current level of unemployment, because there supposedly isn't any work that can be done; total nonsense.

I don't have to present my own work proposals, to rebut that.

if they spent as much time educating themselves about history as they do about protesting they would soon begin to realise how naive their arguments are [well we live in hope]

its frankly embarrassing to listen to the majority of them

seamus wrote: »

Work is created by increased economic activity. Which links to standard supply and demand models. Demand stimulates supply, which requires work.

Your idea is that because at some point in the future there will be increased demand, then we can increase supply now in order to create work. Building is just an example, not the "only" possible example.

In order to show how this supposed model of full employment works, the onus is on you to provide an example of where work can be done in the absence of demand in a way which is sustainable in the long-term.

Increasing economic activity is work; maximum economic activity is limited by full employment (save for efficiency/technological improvements).

The work comes first, the increased economic activity comes after.

You don't need to employ people to produce goods of some variety or other, to satiate demand for those goods: You can employ them just as well on infrastructure or service improvements (our public health services are in quite a state, as increasing are our public transport services, among much else), and other temporary public work projects of value.

The money spent into the economy through this employment, then actually stimulates demand in private industry as well (though wages), boosting private economic activity.

You can actually have government helping to boost up private industry in this way, and taking up the slack of unemployed workers in bad times.

IM0 wrote: »

if they spent as much time educating themselves about history as they do about protesting they would soon begin to realise how naive their arguments are [well we live in hope]

its frankly embarrassing to listen to the majority of them

Practically all supporters of right-wing economists, have not educated themselves on the history and politics behind economics (or indeed, on economics itself).
There are some very basic things they do not know, about economics (particularly macroeconomics), because the theory they support is almost 100% ideology, which bears no relation to reality.

All of right-wing economics is really just politics, it has very little to do with actual economics itself (all of the economics is just shaped around the political goals).

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

You're just re-stating how things operate at the moment, or rather, a simplisic version thereof. There are a number of different proposed models for improved activity; KyussBishop advocates enhanced activity via reforming monetary policy afaik, personally i think full employment can be achieved via new European debt issuance which will increase demand in key areas, a la the Hollande Plan for Europe.

Yes, that's pretty much what I support; I would take either monetary reform or EU-wide debt.

The only objections people have to either of these, are entirely political as well.

jank wrote: »

How about these people make themselves useful? Go back to school or learn a new skill. Why not volunteer? i am sure there are plenty that do these things already but he majority would sit around and wait for something to happen.

You see it is not the responsibility of the government or the state to look after everyone and their infinite needs. People have to learn to look after themselves too.

We never have full employment in this country even though we important a few hundred Eastern Europeans to work here. What do you make of that as I am curious?

You do know its possible for rich people to become poor?

People need a means (i.e. a job) in order to look after themselves. When there is mass unemployment, private industry is failing to provide for these people, so someone has to step in.

I would argue, that those who need to be provided for job-wise, includes the 2-3% of unemployed people there are, at supposed 'full employment' times as well, and I think there is no economic impediment to providing this either (only political impediments).

After all, economic activity is determined by the level of employment, so increasing employment in useful areas, is de-facto a good thing.

KyussBishop wrote: »

Practically all supporters of right-wing economists, have not educated themselves on the history and politics behind economics (or indeed, on economics itself).
There are some very basic things they do not know, about economics (particularly macroeconomics), because the theory they support is almost 100% ideology, which bears no relation to reality.

All of right-wing economics is really just politics, it has very little to do with actual economics itself (all of the economics is just shaped around the political goals).

I meant in the grand scheme of things. but you are zooming in on the economics, economics becomes a moot point if you want the world to burn. the fact is you are living in one of the safest and most peacefull times IN ALL OF HUMAN EXISTANCE! and in one of the most stable countries in the world too relative to our population size and arms manufacturing base [as in none].
these are truly the only sticks that matter if the game of life, its just what life is about, survival! why you lot feel the need to help make the world a better place when it is doing just fine Ill never know, ESPECIALLY since you come from that part of the world yourself which benefits the most

there is only one explanation i can think of, you missed out on the lottery of life [well no you won it by being born in ireland] so to justify it to yourself you blame others and the bad 'man' who has nicer things and holds all the power. in effect you want annarchy, its a dying breed, ironically you are the kind of guys who went raping and pillaging around the world like the vikings and ghengis khan. there is no place for warriors in the world anymore, well there is in the third world, you are free to leave anytime you want to see how that works out for you, let us know how you get on with that