what exactly are G8 Protesters protesting about?

awec · 18-06-2013 02:30AM

Indeed, they are doing such a sterling job of highlighting the issues that nobody knows what their purpose is.

This is the problem with all these loony left events, they attract all the nutcases of the day, all of whom try to peddle a different agenda and so the end result is just one massive waste of time for everyone. Clearly these people have a lot of time that needs wasting.

If this lot put as much effort in to making themselves useful as they do in to making a nuisance of themselves that would be fantastic.

Cody Pomeray · 18-06-2013 02:34AM

awec wrote: »

This is the problem with all these loony left events, they attract all the nutcases of the day, all of whom try to peddle a different agenda and so the end result is just one massive waste of time for everyone.

Clearly you don't have much time for their activism, why are you even bothering with this story? If their protests upset you, ignore them.

The police are reporting that the protests have gone off without any nuisance. Ive no idea what you mean.

awec · 18-06-2013 02:37AM

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Clearly you don't have much time for their activism, why are you even bothering with this story? If their protests upset you, ignore them.

The police are reporting that the protests have gone off without any nuisance. Ive no idea what you mean.

Of course the protests have gone off without nuisance, there's nobody there!

The "protest village" consisted of 5 tents, one of which was a woman who couldn't actually say why she was there other than "I feel very strongly about this". What she felt strongly about was anyone's guess.

Cody Pomeray · 18-06-2013 02:38AM

awec wrote: »

Of course the protests have gone off without nuisance, there's nobody there!

The "protest village" consisted of 5 tents, one of which was a woman who couldn't actually say why she was there other than "I feel very strongly about this". What she felt strongly about was anyone's guess.

what are you actually complaining about here,
that there is a protest, that there isn't a protest, that there isn't enough of a protest.

seriously, move on with your life if it bothers you.

awec · 18-06-2013 02:50AM

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

what are you actually complaining about here,
that there is a protest, that there isn't a protest, that there isn't enough of a protest.

seriously, move on with your life if it bothers you.

Complaining? Pretty sure I was pointing out the nonsense content of the specific quote in the article.

I am certainly not complaining, personally I am delighted that so few of them turned up and saved us all the embarrassment.

Cody Pomeray · 18-06-2013 03:03AM

awec wrote: »

I am certainly not complaining, personally I am delighted that so few of them turned up and saved us all the embarrassment.

I don't see what's embarrassing about people desiring a world that better suits their vision of justice. Moral responsibility and all that. Nothing to be embarrassed about awec. Most people accept this as a healthy feature of an open society, one we might wish more people to enjoy.

yore · 18-06-2013 03:29AM

FTA69 wrote: »

Unlike other periods in history we now have the potential to change all of that. Similarly we can also change the fact that people now are worse off than they were years ago, that their wages are being cut while profits massively increase etc.

"Sure that's the way it has always been." Things change, but nothing will change if people don't organise around that.

Most of the people who spout this silly off-the-shelf rhetoric typically can't understand the inherent irony of the statements they are making.

KyussBishop · 18-06-2013 08:16AM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

And yet every centrally planned economy that has been tested has been a failure. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Anyway have a look through this, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_cycle#Explanations

It displays your own ignorance of economics, that you think any system that can provide permanent full employment, has to be a centrally planned economy.

Your post is a very lazy and transparent attempt, to divide the discussion along ideological 'capitalist vs communist' lines; you do that because your own supported ideology, can't survive a debate without pretending all opponents are communists (when none of them are).

If it were another topic, such logic-free methods of argument could pass as a deliberate attempt to troll people (in this case 'lefties/communists'), and I get the impression right-wing posters pretend to be engaging in intelligent trolling sometimes, so they can put out fallacious arguments without supporters judging that negatively (a kind of 'out', excusing them for making nonsense arguments).

That doesn't work when you believe every word you say. When you know you make fallacious arguments, yet still believe every word of it; that is not trolling, it is an obnoxious level of intellectual dishonesty, and ideological thinking.

KyussBishop · 18-06-2013 08:30AM

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

Here's a better question. Can anyone give an example of a country where central planning has not played a part in its development? All economies engage in central planning to some degree or another.

For example consider a nice clear example of central planning in the US. The interstate highways were planned and constructed by the government under the guise of 'security' when in reality it was a massive socialised boost for the auto and oil (gasoline) industries in the US. At the time the construction of the IH's was the largest public works project in US history. The free market is a myth perpetuated by Capitalists who love the privileges and protection afforded to them by the state and government.

Yes this is a good distinction: When right-wing posters start banging on about central planning, they almost invariably fail to provide their definition of what amounts to central planning.

They will have such an expansive definition, that any amount of public spending can count as central planning, then they switch the definition again when trying to show harm, by pretending you want 100% of the economy run by government, pointing to the failures of Communist countries; such a blindingly obvious straw-man, that there is no way they can not know the dishonesty behind it.

Pretty much all of the fallacious and intellectually dishonest right-wing economic arguments, rely upon playing stupid semantic games, using completely warped definitions of words to suit their arguments (definitions which can change several times over the course of a post).

Then whenever you press them to provide their own personal definition (that is almost invariably wrong or constantly changing), you get the "oh here's the wiki page for you, find out yourself" or "read this several hundred page book and get back to me"; i.e. maximizing condescension, without ever providing their own definition (because if they lock themselves to one definition, that is going to destroy their arguments).

KyussBishop · 18-06-2013 08:47AM

bnt wrote: »

Do you even know what "Libertarian" means? People who protest in the view of governments generally want the government to "do something". Libertarians want governments to do less.

Pointing out the futility of predictable, pre-organised protest certainly doesn't make one an "apologist for authority". The governments can see you all coming, hundreds of miles away. They know what you're going to say before you say it, because it's all over the Internet.

You want to effect real change? Start with yourself. The housing boom and bust wasn't the result of government conspiracy: no-one forced people to take out insanely large mortgages to buy property at bloated valuations. It may have been a failure or lack of regulation, but if you have a Libertarian outlook, you don't want or need regulation to tell you what to do, or not to do. Laws are needed to protect people from themselves: the smarter you are - and I don't mean IQ points - the less regulation you need.

Oh, and those of you tilting against "tax havens" ... you do know that one of those "tax havens" is Ireland, right? Why do you think companies such as Apple, Google, GlaxoSmithKline, Amazon etc. have registered offices here?

When people are out there protesting governments stance against abortion, they most certainly are out there arguing for government to "do less".
I suppose all the pro-choice protestors are just wasting their time too?

Your (and others) stance is nothing more than an attack on protesting itself (since, as the premise for the whole thread, you are totally ignorant about what people are protesting about; you're not merely in disagreement with them).

Your arguing that for people to 'do something' they must do it from within the economy, and should otherwise avoid being politically active (with protesting being one of the primary means of being politically active); ironically, that is arguing for an authoritarian position where government are let 'get on with' what they are doing, with people left to 'do something' in an economy that is politically directed against them in multiple ways.

That's just trying to discourage people from being politically active, wherever their views disagree with yours, and encouraging them to redirect their efforts into doing something in the economy, when all the necessary improvements need to be done at a (both national and international) political level.

corktina · 18-06-2013 09:17AM

you rich
we poor
we want to be rich

Nitochris · 18-06-2013 09:26AM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

If there is no market who determines price, output and wage levels? And how can you be sure output is going to match demand?

While far from ideal when these were set up in the Spanish Civil War in some areas money was done away with. Production and distribution was organised according to human needs. A wide variety of industries were collectivised (note not nationalised). And these survived for two years in the context of a civil war until military action was taken against them. Now those of us who support this idea admit that there were problems some of which came from the historical context and may not recur if tried again.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Also if the workers are able to set their own wage and prevent themselves from being made redundant how is efficiency controlled? You'll end up with a factory paying too many people too much money. This will raise the price and lower the output of the factory.

No one said it was perfect - the bastion of left wing thinking The Economist had this to say:

Ghelco is just one of 130 Argentine companies that over the past four years have risen from the ashes of bankruptcy under employee management. Together they provide around 10,000 jobs - not to be sniffed at in a country where one in five is unemployed. They are a small part of the explanation for the surprising resilience of Argentina's economy and social fabric, after its December devaluation and debt default. But their existence is also testament to the erosion of property rights that in the long run may make Argentina's recovery harder.
Most of the worker-controlled firms are merely scraping along. IMPA, a manufacturer of aluminium containers, has retained 147 staff, although it could function with 90, admits Eduardo Murrua, the production manager. "We have shared out what we don't have in solidarity," he says. The workers have responded with improved productivity and innovations such as switching to scrap as a raw material, reducing costs by 40%. Ghelco, with monthly sales of only 200,000 pesos ($56,000) stopped paying wages for a while. Now, it pays 190 pesos a week - well above the average wage. Everyone receives the same amount...
He argues that the system helps creditors as well as workers, since keeping the factory open stops machinery deteriorating or being vandalised. It also ensures that standing charges, such as property taxes, are paid. If and when the courts decide to put the plant on the market, all of this would ensure a better price.
This cuts little ice with the banks, which generally advocate winding up the company and selling its assets to recover what they can. But rather than bankers, Argentina's judges usually prefer to side with workers who would otherwise become unemployed. ..."This movement doesn't threaten capitalist companies," says Mr Murrua. "We are simply taking over companies that don't work."

I would argue that in undermining property rights it presents a challenge to how most would understand capitalism - note how "libertarian" statists require the state to enforce these. While I have a number of theoretical issues with this model at a practical level the problem is that this was made possible in Argentina due to its pre-existing legal structure. Still it is an alternative model which has worked in the past.

Did I just show show that "there is no alternative" is a lie

jank · 18-06-2013 09:40AM

KyussBishop wrote: »

Yea this really sums up the truly bizarre situation we find ourselves in, and that a lot of people actually spend time defending:
Economic teaching is so wrong and deluded on a fundamental level today, that people can actually credibly argue you should permanently waste enormous amounts of productive potential, by leaving huge swathes of workers unemployed, resources they could work with left idle, and useful things they could do, left undone.

In 100 years, people will look back on how we ran economies today, and will view it as (next to religion perhaps) one of the most historically stupid and harmful examples, of ideology trumping rationality, and holding back the world (causing totally unnecessary widespread suffering in the process).

It's really obvious and simple when you think about it:
When you have anything less than full employment, you are wasting resources and running at less than 100% economic capacity; that is automatically a massive failure of basic economic goals, which is all (when it comes down to it) about allocating resources in an efficient way.

Economic ideology today (including the mainstream theories), is almost entirely politicized now and aimed at favouring right-wing politics, with the goal of trying to fool people into believing any and all steps that could restore full employment, are wrong and will lead to disaster; it's bullshít, touted for political purposes, by those who stand to gain from economic turmoil.

Economic capacity is about the production of goods and services NOT can we get x million workers to dig holes in the ground and fill them up…. rinse and repeat. The by product of capitalism is that people are paid for their input which raises the standard of living for everyone concerned.

If economic ideology today is right wing (are the bailouts right wing ideology?) it is because 1) left wingers have no credible workable solution other than puff talk about workers and spending infinite money on government programs 2) Socialism as we have seen over the past 100 years has been a disaster for any country that has gone with it gusto. Compare the two Korea's, which one is your average 'worker' better off? Nevermind the fact that left wing ideology has killed more people than any other regime or ideology.

Capt'n Midnight · 18-06-2013 09:40AM

awec wrote: »

Mr Tzamouranis said he graduated with a degree in Oriental languages, has been unable to get a job with his education other than casual shift work and remains a victim of capitalism.
...
Honestly, these people are a parody. Perhaps if he didn't do such an utterly fcuking useless degree he wouldn't find himself so unemployable. Should we set up a system to create a false demand for experts in oriental languages?

The oriental express used to go to Istanbul, which is just over the boarder from where he's from

I guess you could say
being here makes him
disorientated :cool:

NIMAN · 18-06-2013 09:54AM

Think how many poor in the world could be fed with the money being spent to secure these leaders, if the protestors weren't there.

KyussBishop · 18-06-2013 10:24AM

jank wrote: »

Economic capacity is about the production of goods and services NOT can we get x million workers to dig holes in the ground and fill them up…. rinse and repeat. The by product of capitalism is that people are paid for their input which raises the standard of living for everyone concerned.

If economic ideology today is right wing (are the bailouts right wing ideology?) it is because 1) left wingers have no credible workable solution other than puff talk about workers and spending infinite money on government programs 2) Socialism as we have seen over the past 100 years has been a disaster for any country that has gone with it gusto. Compare the two Korea's, which one is your average 'worker' better off? Nevermind the fact that left wing ideology has killed more people than any other regime or ideology.

If you can't think of something useful for unemployed workers to do, other than dig holes in the ground, then that is a failure of your own imagination.

If we had full employment before the crisis, or indeed, at any time in the past, then obviously there is a way to configure the economy, so that all workers have something useful to do.

The economy is there to work for the people, not to leave millions of them idle waiting for a job, while an elite grow richer through the socioeconomic effects of the economic turmoil causing that unemployment.

NIMAN · 18-06-2013 11:36AM

I think during our period of full employment we have 100,000+ not working.

Rightwing · 18-06-2013 11:46AM

NIMAN wrote: »

Think how many poor in the world could be fed with the money being spent to secure these leaders, if the protestors weren't there.

Good point, but for the fact that money would be instead spent on make up, and cream suits,,,,remember bertie ahern

Chuckle chuckle :pac:

Rightwing · 18-06-2013 11:51AM

KyussBishop wrote: »

If you can't think of something useful for unemployed workers to do, other than dig holes in the ground, then that is a failure of your own imagination.

If we had full employment before the crisis, or indeed, at any time in the past, then obviously there is a way to configure the economy, so that all workers have something useful to do.

The economy is there to work for the people, not to leave millions of them idle waiting for a job, while an elite grow richer through the socioeconomic effects of the economic turmoil causing that unemployment.

This is seriously flawed.

Some people are incapable of work, eg if they were digging holes they'd manage to injure themselves in the process and claim.

There will be always be a certain % on the dole, but this will still be termed full employment (acknowledgement of the fact that 2-3% will always be on it)

KyussBishop · 18-06-2013 11:56AM

Very few people are incapable of work, you just need to tailor the job to suit the person, and make sure the job is beneficial to society in some way.

It doesn't matter if there is a standard 2-4% level of unemployment that is considered 'full employment'; we have way more unemployed than that now, and those 'full employment' times put the lie to the idea that there is no useful work to do.

Rightwing · 18-06-2013 12:00PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

Very few people are incapable of work, you just need to tailor the job to suit the person, and make sure the job is beneficial to society in some way.

It doesn't matter if there is a standard 2-4% level of unemployment that is considered 'full employment'; we have way more unemployed than that now, and those 'full employment' times put the lie to the idea that there is no useful work to do.

Not necessarily, we had chaps messing on building sites, the work wasn't all that beneficial as we are al paying for it now. Indeed, we may get some of them off the register to knock the houses down.

KyussBishop · 18-06-2013 12:05PM

I'm sure it's not altogether hard, to think of periods of full employment, that didn't occur during construction bubbles.

Rightwing · 18-06-2013 12:08PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

I'm sure it's not altogether hard, to think of periods of full employment, that didn't occur during construction bubbles.

I'm not against welfare.

I'd much prefer to slash the county councils by 50%, and axe all these quangos and stick them on the dole. Ok, we'd have tens of thousands extra on the dole, but no less productivity, and a far smaller pay bill.

Zebra3 · 18-06-2013 12:11PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

I'm sure it's not altogether hard, to think of periods of full employment, that didn't occur during construction bubbles.

Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia.

They shot the unemployed.

Jonny7 · 18-06-2013 12:23PM

Just to point out there's no such thing as full employment.

One of the issues at the G8 summit is trying to tackle offshore tax accounts and evasion

The "elite get richer" is not the complete picture, incredibly the average person has been getting richer too, but when things go wrong, as they invariably do with such a system that isn't perfect, then guess who gets blamed. Human greed has a huge part in this, from the very bottom to the very top. It's just much easier and simpler to scapegoat the top.

I can't believe I am defending crooked bankers and useless politicians, but some of the pseudo-philosophical comments in here are as nonsense filled as most of those G8 protesters.

Cody Pomeray · 18-06-2013 12:36PM

Jonny7 wrote: »

I can't believe I am defending crooked bankers and useless politicians, but some of the pseudo-philosophical comments in here are as nonsense filled as most of those G8 protesters.

as opposed to that rising tide yarn you just came out with?

what's the point shouting from the ditch. 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.

Earthhorse · 18-06-2013 01:05PM

awec wrote: »

If those protesters put as much effort into making themselves useful as they do in to making a nuisance of themselves that would be a start.

They are an absolute waste of space.

Unlike the leaders of the G8, who have restored the world's faith in democracy, capitalism and government oversight.

awec wrote: »

Should we set up a system to create a false demand for experts in oriental languages?

No, we should set up a system which creates on-the-fly bailouts for private enterprise. I call it the "No Bank Left Behind Program".

awec wrote: »

Indeed, they are doing such a sterling job of highlighting the issues that nobody knows what their purpose is.

Not nobody. Just yourself and other willfully ignorant people.

NIMAN wrote: »

Think how many poor in the world could be fed with the money being spent to secure these leaders, if the protestors weren't there.

Think how many poor in the world would be fed with the money being spent to secure these leaders, if the protestors weren't there.

It'd be zero.

Earthhorse · 18-06-2013 01:17PM

bnt wrote: »

They know what you're going to say before you say it, because it's all over the Internet.

Yes, because we all know what a friend to the internet the government are. They spend huge swathes of time reading boards, reddit and other websites because they're interested in what we think. They have also made no attempts to control content on the web through acts like SOPA. In fact, the US government are so interested in what I think they can even go through my gmail without my permission; what a world!

You want to effect real change? Start with yourself. The housing boom and bust wasn't the result of government conspiracy: no-one forced people to take out insanely large mortgages to buy property at bloated valuations.

Okay, cool. And I didn't take out a mortgage, large or small, to buy anything. Yet, here I am, still living in a word unchanged, and, in fact, paying more money to bailout the private institutions who weren't forced to lend insanely large mortgages on overvalued properties to people they could not reasonably expect to repay them. Ho hum.

It may have been a failure or lack of regulation, but if you have a Libertarian outlook, you don't want or need regulation to tell you what to do, or not to do. Laws are needed to protect people from themselves: the smarter you are - and I don't mean IQ points - the less regulation you need.

I don't want or need regulation to tell me what to do, and I'm not a Libertarian. But the idea that real change can be affected by non participation - either in property booms or protests - is one that simply has zero evidence to back it in the real world.

KyussBishop · 18-06-2013 01:23PM

Jonny7 wrote: »

Just to point out there's no such thing as full employment.

That's not even relevant to the point be rebutted: People are trying to claim that there is nothing for the unemployed workers to do, which any period of greater employment shows is false.

Again, if people can't think of a single good thing for any of the unemployed to do, they have a severe lack of imagination.

Jonny7 · 18-06-2013 01:24PM

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

as opposed to that rising tide yarn you just came out with?

what's the point shouting from the ditch. 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.

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?

what exactly are G8 Protesters protesting about?

Comments