nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Western democracies vs. One-party capitalist governments

[Deleted User]

After a prolonged discussion this evening with a friend, we jointly came to a conclusion that one-party control over a capitalist system is, while less than ideal, the best way for a country to excel.

1. Instead of parties fullfilling short-term politcal goals, the party needs to aim towards long-term goals, or risk revolt.

2. Societal issues that split a country are way more severe for the populace than are usually accounted for. Neither of us thought Trump or Brexit were worth the damage done.

We live in Vietnam where not one of our Vietnamese friends care about politics, and they really are happier for it. They just see their country getting better and this general idea that things are good is very under-rated.

3. Stuff gets done. Things that may take a generation happen because there isn't a revolving door of politicians.

4. Environmental impact. The Chinese government owns its awful air quality. Who fixes it? They are actively doing that (they're 1/4 of the US per/capita in emissions). Who fixes California's drought and fires? No one.

5. Unity. People aren't split in Vietnam. Some are oppressed because this is how this type of government has to operate nowadays, but overall, it's a country together.

I'll get a lot of hate for this post. But what we talked about made sense. We're surrounded by the consequences of Brexit etc. and stressed out, while our Vietnamese friends don't give a toss about anything political. Our cost of democracy is angst.

My made up solution this evening was for TDs to have longer terms. Long enough that the end result of decisions they make are visible. Stop short-term goals and make them accountable. Or have one political party and referndums on all social issues.

I'm not politically astute, obviously, so no need to go hell for leather on me. I just like living in a society where pretty much everyone is on the same page.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

badtoro

Deleted User wrote: »

5. Unity. People aren't split in Vietnam. Some are oppressed because this is how this type of government has to operate nowadays, but overall, it's a country together.

Stuck at home under the weather, literally just saw a Vietnamese contributor to the Ken Burns series on the Vietnam war say Vietnamese people are more split now than ever before.

[Deleted User]

badtoro wrote: »

Stuck at home under the weather, literally just saw a Vietnamese contributor to the Ken Burns series on the Vietnam war say Vietnamese people are more split now than ever before.

Spilt on what? The only thing I've witnessed here is a split on Ho Chi Minh. The country itself is fine on the country's direction, with the South China sea being the big issue.

Vietnam isn't really my point here though. It's far from ideal.

oscarBravo

Deleted User wrote: »

After a prolonged discussion this evening with a friend, we jointly came to a conclusion that one-party control over a capitalist system is, while less than ideal, the best way for a country to excel.

Not trying to be antagonistic here, but isn't that a succinct definition of fascism?

The Wild Goose

Could it be that the Vietnamese people are more concerned with where their next meal is coming from than politics?
You see here in the west we're living in the land of plenty. Nobody goes hungry. The supermarkets are all chock full of food available at unbelievable prices... literally. The price of food is ridiculously low.

You'd probably have to go back to the 1940's to when the world was at war and everything was in short supply as our last time of real austerity and hardship.
Which means that there are few people alive here today who have ever experienced real hunger.

So food isn't a problem here. And don't worry, cause you don't even have to earn it. No job? No problem, the state will provide all you need.
And the state will even provide for the other peoples of the world too, so come on in and enjoy the party of plenty. Need a house? Sure thing.
Need education, need medical? Absolutely, whatever you want and it's all free.

Except....it's a totally unsustainable model.
We're spending around 18 billion a year more than we're taking in... opps!
So at some stage western civilization is going to crash and burn.
And how are we going to survive if the safety blanket of the state is taken away?
Most won't. People in general have lost the ability to do anything for themselves, and that includes most who work as well.
Being creative in Excel is going to be of little use in putting food on the table, nor is selling insurance, selling flat screens or hiding in a civil service office. A recent survey found that 30% of 18-35yo males couldn't change a light bulb!

We're on borrowed time here in our little western utopia, but people are too busy wondering which colour car would look best in their driveway, or where to find a safe space because someone displayed micro-aggression by disagreeing with their opinion.
Western civilization is reeling on the ropes right now...we just don't know it yet!

James Brown

The Wild Goose wrote: »

Could it be that the Vietnamese people are more concerned with where their next meal is coming from than politics?
You see here in the west we're living in the land of plenty. Nobody goes hungry. The supermarkets are all chock full of food available at unbelievable prices... literally. The price of food is ridiculously low.

You'd probably have to go back to the 1940's to when the world was at war and everything was in short supply as our last time of real austerity and hardship.
Which means that there are few people alive here today who have ever experienced real hunger.

So food isn't a problem here. And don't worry, cause you don't even have to earn it. No job? No problem, the state will provide all you need.
And the state will even provide for the other peoples of the world too, so come on in and enjoy the party of plenty. Need a house? Sure thing.
Need education, need medical? Absolutely, whatever you want and it's all free.

Except....it's a totally unsustainable model.
We're spending around 18 billion a year more than we're taking in... opps!
So at some stage western civilization is going to crash and burn.
And how are we going to survive if the safety blanket of the state is taken away?
Most won't. People in general have lost the ability to do anything for themselves, and that includes most who work as well.
Being creative in Excel is going to be of little use in putting food on the table, nor is selling insurance, selling flat screens or hiding in a civil service office. A recent survey found that 30% of 18-35yo males couldn't change a light bulb!

We're on borrowed time here in our little western utopia, but people are too busy wondering which colour car would look best in their driveway, or where to find a safe space because someone displayed micro-aggression by disagreeing with their opinion.
Western civilization is reeling on the ropes right now...we just don't know it yet!

I agree it's not sustainable, but sure what's another crash? Just nature taking it's course.
FYI: currently largest number of children homeless in the state, record breaking. More than ever before, but y'know something for nothing, Brexit and that.

Amirani

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I agree it's not sustainable, but sure what's another crash? Just nature taking it's course.
FYI: currently largest number of children homeless in the state, record breaking. More than ever before, but y'know something for nothing, Brexit and that.

How many homeless people do you reckon there are in Vietnam?

Bet they're not even able to count "homeless" in the way that we can, as the concept of emergency accommodation via hotels etc. doesn't exist.

James Brown

Amirani wrote: »

How many homeless people do you reckon there are in Vietnam?

I have little to no clue about Vietnam. I have however seen the Rambo's and have a poor view of their camp commandants keeping POW's long after said conflict.

CrabRevolution

The Wild Goose wrote: »

Could it be that the Vietnamese people are more concerned with where their next meal is coming from than politics?
You see here in the west we're living in the land of plenty. Nobody goes hungry. The supermarkets are all chock full of food available at unbelievable prices... literally. The price of food is ridiculously low.

You'd probably have to go back to the 1940's to when the world was at war and everything was in short supply as our last time of real austerity and hardship.
Which means that there are few people alive here today who have ever experienced real hunger.

So food isn't a problem here. And don't worry, cause you don't even have to earn it. No job? No problem, the state will provide all you need.
And the state will even provide for the other peoples of the world too, so come on in and enjoy the party of plenty. Need a house? Sure thing.
Need education, need medical? Absolutely, whatever you want and it's all free.

Except....it's a totally unsustainable model.
We're spending around 18 billion a year more than we're taking in... opps!
So at some stage western civilization is going to crash and burn.
And how are we going to survive if the safety blanket of the state is taken away?
Most won't. People in general have lost the ability to do anything for themselves, and that includes most who work as well.
Being creative in Excel is going to be of little use in putting food on the table, nor is selling insurance, selling flat screens or hiding in a civil service office. A recent survey found that 30% of 18-35yo males couldn't change a light bulb!

We're on borrowed time here in our little western utopia, but people are too busy wondering which colour car would look best in their driveway, or where to find a safe space because someone displayed micro-aggression by disagreeing with their opinion.
Western civilization is reeling on the ropes right now...we just don't know it yet!

Who is? Ireland's Budget defecit was €630 Million euro this year.

Unless your "opps" refers to your own mistaken info?

The Wild Goose

CrabRevolution wrote: »

Who is? Ireland's Budget defecit was €630 Million euro this year.

Unless your "opps" refers to your own mistaken info?

Unless I'm reading your table incorrectly (which is possible as I'm not an economist) the very last line reads:

General Government Debt, per cent of GDP = 64%

The figures for 2018 aren't yet available as we're still in 2018.
However, according to tradingeconomics.com, the GDP for Ireland was $333.73 billion US dollars in 2017.
This would put our General Government Debt for 2018 in the region of $213 billion , or roughly €186.51 billion.
Am I incorrect?

If I am in fact correct though, that means that every man, woman and child in this country owes €840,000

Amirani

The Wild Goose wrote: »

If I am in fact correct though, that means that every man, woman and child in this country owes €840,000

That figure is completely irrelevant without netting off assets. Even at that, it's still an abstract figure that doesn't really mean much.

Zubeneschamali

Deleted User wrote: »

I'll get a lot of hate for this post.

You wish.

[Deleted User]

Deleted User wrote: »

1. Instead of parties fullfilling short-term politcal goals, the party needs to aim towards long-term goals, or risk revolt.

Mayhaps after a long period of stagnation following a brutal and devastating war things are either going to improve or get worse whatever the system.

2. Societal issues that split a country are way more severe for the populace than are usually accounted for. Neither of us thought Trump or Brexit were worth the damage done.

Easy when all the opposition are slaughtered or re-educated.

We live in Vietnam where not one of our Vietnamese friends care about politics, and they really are happier for it. They just see their country getting better and this general idea that things are good is very under-rated.

If it was a democracy it could still get better.

3. Stuff gets done. Things that may take a generation happen because there isn't a revolving door of politicians.

Our system could certainly improve but there's an element of low-hanging fruit in poor and underdeveloped countries when it comes to building infrastructure.

4. Environmental impact. The Chinese government owns its awful air quality. Who fixes it? They are actively doing that (they're 1/4 of the US per/capita in emissions). Who fixes California's drought and fires? No one.

Smog in Chinese cities is horrendous, they're still building coal-fired plants and using CFCs illegally. But they "own it". Please. America's uselessness in some of this area doesn't excuse China's.

5. Unity. People aren't split in Vietnam. Some are oppressed because this is how this type of government has to operate nowadays, but overall, it's a country together.

As above, kill, re-educate and suppress all opposition and yeah, it's less likely there'll be great divisions. Hardly groundbreaking.

James Brown

The anti-democracy idea of one party perpetually would never fly and rightly so. We in the west prefer the illusion of democracy, (the lesser or more popular of two evils) and the subtle wave of being owned by international financial cartels, (owning a home is 'entitlement' for example) washing over us as we give out about minorities.

The Wild Goose

Amirani wrote: »

That figure is completely irrelevant without netting off assets. Even at that, it's still an abstract figure that doesn't really mean much.

Well we've no oil, coal or gas reserves, no gold or diamond mines and no crown jewels to sell off, so what assets are we talking about?
We could sell off the land but then we'd all be tenants...been there, done that.

Personally if I owe some dude in China €800,000 I wouldn't consider it irrelevant, but then that's just me. And I certainly wouldn't pin my hopes on a chart that claims it can predict 5 years into the future?

All civilizations end, and ours is passed it's sell-by date IMO.
Virtually no-one can do anything tangible anymore. We've lost the ability to look after ourselves, and presume someone will step in and do it for us.
We've also lost the ability to think logically and solve problems.

Think about it, what major inventions have we as a civilization come up with in the last 50 years? Enhancements yes, with Japan leading the way (who last time I checked had a national debt of 240% of GDP..Wow)

It won't take much for it to tip over the edge either.
A few inches of snow in March and people were virtually stabbing each other over a loaf of bread.
Imagine how quickly it would deteriorate if there was a real problem?

There's an old saying which is very apt for all civilisations:

Strong men make good times
Good times make weak men
Weak men make bad times
Bad times make strong men

In case you were wondering...we're at line three

CrankyHaus

Replace multi-party democracy with single party capitalism and you just move the level of power exchange above the electorate to factions of the powerful vying for control within the single ruling party, basically oligarchy.

Personally I prefer our imperfect system of accountable democracy. Arguably single party state capitalism works better in more cohesive collectivist Asian societies that deliver prosperity under this model but even they may eventually seek democratic accountability, such as in South Korea in the late 1980s.

rossie1977

Just back from China and the air quality issue especially in Beijing is getting worse not better from the last time I was there.

Gbear

I think when people complain about democracy they tend to do so either unaware or dismissive of why democracy is an effective system of government.

It isn't about efficiency or absolute levels of wealth or thriving, it's about stability and diffusion of power.

Any time you give people power a large proportion will abuse it if they think they can get away with it, whether it's putting their hand in the till if they're working a cash register, or they have unilateral control over a police state.

What we've seen in recent events in the UK and the US, is that functional democracy hasn't been found wanting, but rather that a poor set of democratic systems had their weaknesses exposed.

The lack of representation in both countries has led to disenfranchisement and an ability for the far right in both countries to hold power well above their support, and this has meant they don't have to actually fulfill any kind of mandate.

They can ignore actually making people's lives better, focus on lining their pockets, or, if you're being generous, execute absurd, poorly thought out pseudo-libertarian political fantasies, and have been safe in the knowledge that they could still clutch onto power because of the shoddy job their democratic systems do at representing the actual people of the country, particularly in the face of rampant propaganda they control, and a puzzling tendency for humans to, when faced with periods of want, immediately jump on the weakest, rather than targeting those directly responsible for their worsening conditions.

A more slanted system, all the way up to it's logical conclusion - a fascist one-party state, would be worse in this respect.

Benevolent dictatorships are a nice fantasy, but that's all they are.

abcabc123123

Deleted User wrote: »

After a prolonged discussion this evening with a friend, we jointly came to a conclusion that one-party control over a capitalist system is, while less than ideal, the best way for a country to excel.

Doesn't surprise me to read this. You're not the only one:

In 2016 a survey found that more than half of young Americans no longer support capitalism.

Only a third of Americans under 35 say that it is vital they live in a democracy; the share who would welcome military government grew from 7% in 1995 to 18% last year.

I don't think you're American but I expect you'd see similar trends here.

1. Instead of parties fullfilling short-term politcal goals, the party needs to aim towards long-term goals, or risk revolt.

That's very charitable towards single party states. Looking at history, they certainly tend to be wary of revolt, but sensible and steady, long term planning isn't something you generally associate with them. It generally starts with silencing dissent and gets worse from there when that doesn't work.

2. Societal issues that split a country are way more severe for the populace than are usually accounted for. Neither of us thought Trump or Brexit were worth the damage done.
/
5. Unity. People aren't split in Vietnam. Some are oppressed because this is how this type of government has to operate nowadays, but overall, it's a country together.

It's hard to be split on things when you're not allowed have a different opinion. I'm thankful we haven't had much Irexit bull**** here but I'd still much rather have that than live somewhere talking out of turn results in a knock on the door.

3. Stuff gets done. Things that may take a generation happen because there isn't a revolving door of politicians.

4. Environmental impact. The Chinese government owns its awful air quality. Who fixes it? They are actively doing that (they're 1/4 of the US per/capita in emissions). Who fixes California's drought and fires? No one.

Given the most prosperous countries on the planet are still countries with pluralistic democracies, I think this is false (3). I don't know much about China's emissions but I'd imagine being able to bypass large parts of the industrial revolution by being late to the party helps.

I'll get a lot of hate for this post. But what we talked about made sense. We're surrounded by the consequences of Brexit etc. and stressed out, while our Vietnamese friends don't give a toss about anything political. Our cost of democracy is angst.

Angst is a pretty tiny cost to pay I would have thought.

My made up solution this evening was for TDs to have longer terms. Long enough that the end result of decisions they make are visible. Stop short-term goals and make them accountable. Or have one political party and referndums on all social issues.

Referendums are incredibly divisive. You yourself said Brexit wasn't worth it. Personally, I think referendums are a bad idea and should be avoided wherever possible.

I've not formed an opinion on TD terms. Anyone?

I just like living in a society where pretty much everyone is on the same page.

Sounds kind of bleak to me.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

We in the west prefer the illusion of democracy, (the lesser or more popular of two evils) and the subtle wave of being owned by international financial cartels, (owning a home is 'entitlement' for example) washing over us as we give out about minorities.

Left wing populism is dangerous as well.

The Wild Goose

Gbear wrote: »

What we've seen in recent events in the UK and the US, is that functional democracy hasn't been found wanting, but rather that a poor set of democratic systems had their weaknesses exposed.

The lack of representation in both countries has led to disenfranchisement and an ability for the far right in both countries to hold power well above their support, and this has meant they don't have to actually fulfill any kind of mandate.

They can ignore actually making people's lives better, focus on lining their pockets, or, if you're being generous, execute absurd, poorly thought out pseudo-libertarian political fantasies, and have been safe in the knowledge that they could still clutch onto power because of the shoddy job their democratic systems do at representing the actual people of the country, particularly in the face of rampant propaganda they control, and a puzzling tendency for humans to, when faced with periods of want, immediately jump on the weakest, rather than targeting those directly responsible for their worsening conditions..

I'm sorry, but are you referring to Trump?
Trump won a democratic election, despite most of mainstream media being controlled by the far left, along with the movie industry and the mogul's who control all of social media.
Facebook, Twitter and Youtube are all controlled by the left, as evidenced by the fact that they all have been systematically closing down conservative accounts, while leaving radical left extremists accounts untouched.
Most US universities are also controlled by the left, resulting in extreme left-wing bias being indoctrinated into the youth by leftist professors.
Yet he won the election. Why?
Because ordinary people are tired of the fanaticism of the left.
They're tired of being force-fed that there 32 genders, tired of being told that they should feel guilt for their 'white privilege', tired of the left trying to take away their 1st and 2nd amendments, tired of the Clinton foundation with it's €600 million in its coffers, tired of Hilary and her 98% erasure of emails required for evidence, and tired of being sold a pup under the guise of all-inclusiveness but which is really a cover for globalisation.

He was voted in by ordinary people who want nothing more than to raise a family and work for a living. Last time I checked the US unemployment rate was at it's lowest level in 29 years. That's what the ordinary people want.

sink

I think authoritarian regimes only work in developing countries because they have a road map to follow. They are following a well beaten path of economic development trough trade liberalisation and investment in education and infrastructure. The problems with authoritarian regimes will become apparent when they are at a high level of development and there are no easy paths to growth. The regime will lose legitimacy and will inevitably turn to repression in order to maintain power, this will further damage growth. Only countries that manage to transition from authoritarianism to democracy will maintain the upwards trend and join the top level of development.

rossie1977

The Wild Goose wrote: »

I'm sorry, but are you referring to Trump?
Trump won a democratic election, despite most of mainstream media being controlled by the far left, along with the movie industry and the mogul's who control all of social media.

The far left controls the media in the States..are you serious? Name even one progressive candidate who got any airtime on a US network before they won an election or started putting up a major challenge to someone in the establishment let alone someone on far left.

The us media gave Trump hundreds of hours of free advertising during the campaign while ignoring his rivals. CNN and other networks aired Trump's empty podium https://www.thestreet.com/story/13896916/1/donald-trump-rode-5-billion-in-free-media-to-the-white-house.html

Facebook, Twitter and Youtube are all controlled by the left, as evidenced by the fact that they all have been systematically closing down conservative accounts, while leaving radical left extremists accounts untouched.

Facebook and Twitter played a big role in Trump's victory. Twitter failed to shut down the thousands upon thousands of obvious Russian bot accounts in time and Facebook distributed a multitude of fake news stories on Clinton and of course the Cambridge Analytica scandal.

The accounts shut down by Twitter were inciting violence. If you feel there are radical left extremist accounts inciting violence against their opponent's then they should be shut down too. However in the last decade 73% of terrorist attacks in the US were far right and 3% far left it's obvious there is a much bigger problem on one side of political spectrum right now.

Most US universities are also controlled by the left, resulting in extreme left-wing bias being indoctrinated into the youth by leftist professors.
Yet he won the election. Why?
Because ordinary people are tired of the fanaticism of the left.

Actually fanaticism is mostly on the right. There isn't many on the left currently blowing up clinics/places of worship or running over protestors or sending bombs to media outlets and celebrities.

They're tired of being force-fed that there 32 genders, tired of being told that they should feel guilt for their 'white privilege', tired of the left trying to take away their 1st and 2nd amendments, tired of the Clinton foundation with it's €600 million in its coffers, tired of Hilary and her 98% erasure of emails required for evidence, and tired of being sold a pup under the guise of all-inclusiveness but which is really a cover for globalisation.

On this week of all weeks you bring up Hillary's e-mails..

He was voted in by ordinary people who want nothing more than to raise a family and work for a living. Last time I checked the US unemployment rate was at it's lowest level in 29 years. That's what the ordinary people want.

US economy was losing 800,000 job a month when Obama took over, he turned that around to 75 months of consecutive of job growth or go from 10% in October 2009 to 4.7% in December 2016.

Trump has done nothing for the ordinary person on the street. His economic policies as expected are there to benefit himself, the top 1% and huge corporations. He doesn't even try to hide it.

Obama was a corporatist but the guy living in the huge tower with his name in gold letters sitting on a golden throne is a man of the people..

The Wild Goose

I clicked the BBC online news service a month or so ago.
I don't remember the exact headline but it was along the lines of "White House staff disobey Trump", the gist of it being that staff thought Trump's policies so bad they weren't obeying them.
Bear in mind that this was the main headline on the BBC news service!

When I delved into the small print, it turned out that it was in fact taken from an editorial in the New York Times, which quoted an 'unknown source'.
The headline wasn't even in quotation marks.

So this is the depths to which mainstream media has fallen, this BBC headline news story was based on someone's opinion quoting an unsubstantiated source?
But there's more...

I decided to make a complaint to the BBC on the grounds that this was not in fact documented news even though it was presented as such, but merely one persons opinion, then proceeded to jump through all the hoops required to make a complaint.
And guess what?
When I got to the end and clicked 'report', it disappeared, and I was returned to the beginning of the process.

So I don't know where you're getting your news sources from, but if you're expecting true news from either the BBC or our leftie friends in RTE, well good luck with that.

When Trump got elected, presenters and reporters on CNN and MSNBC were crying ... literally crying!
This demonstrated two things, firstly where their loyalties lay, and secondly how infantile they are that they can't even conduct themselves properly in front of the camera.
Every single day for the two years since his election, both these 'news channels' run derogatory reports and commentary about Trump, and they'll clutch at anything at all no matter how insane or ludicrous it may be to try and undermine him.

Recently they had an "expert" in the studio trying to show that Trump 'could be' in the early stages of dementia because of the way he was holding a water bottle at a news conference? I mean, come on? This is news reporting?

It's been two years of this drivel, surely after two years it's time to move on and report some actual real news? Trump calls them fake news for good reason.

CNN have been caught out multiple times, and not just in relation to him but generally. Like when the two reporters were reporting from different locations, except they were really standing in the same parking lot because the same cars were passing by in the backgrounds of both. Or when the reporter was shoulder deep in the floodwater...until two people walked by in the background showing that he was really on his knees. Some would call this "Fake News".

I checked out your tagged report regarding free election airtime.
Firstly, this relates to free coverage.
So if CNN featured a 3 hour report on Trump for example, attempting to demonstrate he was a male chauvinist pig, that would show as 3 hours of free airtime for Trump.

So it relates to all free coverage, positive and negative.
Did you happen to notice that Trumps negative coverage was almost double that of Clinton?

It's also obvious that a 'personality' who was not previously a politician, shoots from the hip and doesn't use the same worn out political speak is going to get more media coverage, both positive and negative but mainly negative, than a lifetime politician.

Secondly, Trumps campaign was clever. He knew he was facing a leftist mainstream media and had to think of alternatives so he used Twitter, a platform available to everyone and not subject to the same political censorship as mainstream media (well not yet, but for how long?).
Also, I would hazard a guess that if you were to exclude Twitter from that report and concentrate solely on mainstream media, the negative portion of Trumps free publicity would jump to 80-90%.

Thirdly, that report emerged from a company in Portland and we know what that's famous for recently, so there's every possibility the figures could be 'massaged'.
Portland in case you're not aware is a leftist-controlled city where the police were ordered to stand down while masked Antifa rioted for three days.

Ah good old Portland and the rest of the west coast of America, bastions of democracy and supporters of the democratic party.
Except of course in places like San Francisco, where the left-wing governors of the city have instructed it's citizens NOT to uphold federal law?

Have you any idea how stupid some of these people really are?
The west coast universities are turning out a generation who know nothing, literally.
Check out Mark Dice on youtube if you don't believe me. He asks simple questions out on the street, questions like:

"What does the 4th July celebrate?" "Who was the city of Washington named after?"
"What was the last book you read?" "What year did we gain independence from China?"
The Obama educated generation literally haven't a clue.
They know nothing of their own history, they don't read books, but they can go to a rally and shout "Trump out". When asked why, the usual response is that "he's a racist" When asked for one racist thing he said, the response is "Aw, I donno..he just is!" They go through a university system and come out the other end with nothing except the ability to chant meaningless slogans.

This ideology and education system is coming to a school near you too.
We're already on that path ourselves. I have a friend who's a primary school teacher.
She can't spend enough time on the basics of reading, writing and arithmetic because over 90% of her class of infants can't speak English. There's no mention of Christmas allowed in the school, and all food must be halal. That's in a Dublin school.

It's only a matter of time before there are areas of Dublin under sharia law.
You think that's crazy right?
Well tell that to the people who live in or near these places in UK, France, Belgium, Sweden etc.. Tell it to the people who actually report on the ground from these places.

If I see footage of someone walking down a street in their own city being stopped by police and told "You can't go down there because you may offend someone, and if you attempt to we'll arrest you", then I believe them when they report that it's a no-go area for westerners.

Forget about mainstream media who are pushing their own agenda and investigate and observe yourself. Don't just accept government facts and figures. See if what they say actually conforms with your real world view.
If you see with your own eyes or through the lens of someone who's actually there, then give that more credence than someone sitting in a studio.
If you start off with the assumption that all news has been corrupted by the messengers ideology and then work backwards, you'll eventually get to the truth.

James Brown

CrankyHaus wrote: »

Replace multi-party democracy with single party capitalism and you just move the level of power exchange above the electorate to factions of the powerful vying for control within the single ruling party, basically oligarchy.

Personally I prefer our imperfect system of accountable democracy. Arguably single party state capitalism works better in more cohesive collectivist Asian societies that deliver prosperity under this model but even they may eventually seek democratic accountability, such as in South Korea in the late 1980s.

What we currently have is the illusion of accountable democracy. We simply switch one team for the other with (sometimes) differing factions of the powerful vying for control backing them, rewarded through inappropriate behaviour with sweet deals and the like.

[Deleted User]

I don't even remember starting this.. And I'm embarrassed. Keep it going if you like.

[Deleted User]

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't even remember starting this.. And I'm embarrassed. Keep it going if you like.

I read your OP to a friend and prefaced it by saying I assumed you were pissed out of your head when posting it. :P

johnnyskeleton

I think the obvious solution is to encourage people to value long term planning and sensible government over short term gains.

I saw a faint flicker of hope for the last budget when the Taoiseach came out and said that he believed the budget would be more or less balanced. I was then dissappointed to see that we were still deficit spending. In bizzaroland of 2018, running a deficit of less than 3% is more or less balanced!

What I would like to see is a world where a politician who promises to increase taxes, cut current government spending, pay off our debt and invest in infrastructure or (since it's a political hot topic at the moment) state owned utilities is a viable candidate for election.

Imagine over the next hundred years' time, the parties that promises to give everyone a little bonus come budget time (i.e. every current party in Ireland and most non-fringe parties in Europe and North America) were never in government, and we went from servicing nearly €200bn in debt at a cost of a few billion per year, we had no debt and NTMA assets of €200bn that provided a return of a few billion per year.

In my view, something like this should be the long term goal - move away from the deficit spending constantly seeking growth model, and focus on building a financially stable state.

Sadly, if you said that to most people these days they'd think you're insane. Ah well, back to the old more hospital beds vs lower taxes debate!

EDIT: Just in case it wasn't clear, the idea of a one party state is absolutely abhorrent, and as much as I'd love to see long term planning, I'd sacrifice it any day for democracy. What I would like to see is a change of voters views over the long term!

johnnyskeleton

Matt Barrett wrote: »

What we currently have is the illusion of accountable democracy. We simply switch one team for the other with (sometimes) differing factions of the powerful vying for control backing them, rewarded through inappropriate behaviour with sweet deals and the like.

Indeed, but to paraphrase Winston Churchill*, democracy is the worst system of government in the world; apart that is from every other kind of government!

*might not be a Churchill quote, but is often attributed to him.

James Brown

I think what we see here is a race to improve the economic numbers. It should, but does not, equate to more prosperity and better services for all. It's akin to working over time and cutting back on maintaining your house to make your bank account grow so you've money to spend on servicing problems rather than fixing them or spending on any issue that you take a fancy to.
It came up on a thread a while back, as regards the OP, sometimes I think leaving the day to day running of the state in the hands of administrators is a way to go, leaving any policy moves to politicians. There'd be no more parish pump anyway.

Victor

The Wild Goose wrote: »

We're spending around 18 billion a year more than we're taking in... opps!

Are we? This would seem to suggest we approximately break even (up by one measure, down by the other).

http://www.budget.gov.ie/Budgets/2019/Documents/White%20Paper_Estimates%20of%20Receipts%20and%20Expenditure%20for%20Year%20ending%2031%20Dec%202019.pdf

The Wild Goose wrote: »

This would put our General Government Debt for 2018 in the region of $213 billion , or roughly €186.51 billion.
Am I incorrect?

$/€ values vary. The NTMA put it at €190 billion. http://www.ntma.ie/business-areas/funding-and-debt-management/debt-profile/

If I am in fact correct though, that means that every man, woman and child in this country owes €840,000[/QUOTE]About 4.784 million people

€190 billion / 4.784 million = €39,716.

Franz Von Peppercorn

oscarBravo wrote: »

Not trying to be antagonistic here, but isn't that a succinct definition of fascism?

There are millions of definitions of fascism these days. He’s actually describing China or Vietnam both nominally communist.