Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.

what exactly are G8 Protesters protesting about?

123457

Comments

  • #182
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    Oh right, so you read it, meaning you knew full well that I had presented solutions, thus showing that your previous post was you being deliberately obtuse, in requesting I present my solution when you already knew what it was.

    Don't pretend to be engaging in honest argument with people here, when you make it this clear that you are only interested in one-way rhetoric based argument.

    I am asking you for just one example where your policy has been tried and been a success. You cannot provide that, so that leads to the conclusion that you have not thought through your theory at all.


  • #183
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Cody Pomeray wrote: »
    Not really, no, because the personal is not important. There is no one field or vocational pursuit, outside of the public service, which is perpetually immune from unemployment as the economy grows and develops... or stagnates and contracts

    Of course it is the best thing for many graduates-that's the problem. The issue is that many people don't want to emigrate long term, and further that it is detrimental to the Irish economy to educate people and then export them to foreign economies.


    Keep up with this line jank, because you're displaying your own lack of knowledge here- the US are visibly more interventionist, the US are printing money to stimulate economic activity via QEII and associated interventions - something European Governments are legally proscribed from doing, based on a very conservative German economic and monetary policy.

    A few points. It is not the governments problem nor its fault, or the faults of the banks if you cannot get a job after finishing college. You could be studying roman pottery if all I know. Young people's expectations are a little out of kilter with the reality. I left college education in 2005 with a masters degree. It was incredibly difficult to find work in my field, so much so that many class mates went off to work in construction. That's worked out well!! Now I could go back to Ireland and get a job easily enough because of my experience and skills.

    Emigration for older people is not something we should look to with fondness but the idea that ALL emigration is bad is just usual Irish bitterness. For many it's the best thing they ever do. If you do it yourself, you may find that out. People always have a choice. It's a lot easier now than say 100 years ago and I would call a bunch of guys getting pissed for a year in bondi emigration, I would call that a holiday.


    Regards the US and their printing of money, what real benefit to the unemployment rate has that brought? The only real benefactors to all this new money are surprise surprise, the stock market! So you want Europe to do the same, there will be little effect in the real economy and regards unemployment. The stock market will boom with so much cheap money and socialists will call for more cheap money or fairer redristribution. That is the thing with the left wing. They fail to grasp simple 101 economics.

    Here is an example. You want to pursue policies that will weaken the earning power of workers, those who saved money and cause severe inflation in the future where the only real benefactors are rich Wall Street types and those irresponsbile enough to incur huge debt. Funny stuff!


  • #184
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,687 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    jank wrote: »
    You probably typed that on a laptop right? Where did the technology and research come from to produce that laptop? The state? Cuba?

    One of the favoured pseudo-libertarian gibberish selective soundbites. Silicon Valley has its roots in publicly funded innovation. The internet was a publicly created system.
    Also, you do know that it was the state that bailed out the banks! Yet people want to give them more power and money to 'distribute' as they please?

    This presumes that in the absence of the state (a group of human beings) that the costs would not have been passed on by what would essentially be private tyrannies run by groups of human beings. More gibberish.
    Libertarians will also look for the government to get out of the way of people

    But, hypocritically and conveniently, not go away completely which means that they are, in fact, nanny state conservatives who want to retain the parts of government that protects their privileges.

    Don't bother coming back with passages from you LiberBible - I couldn't be bothered countering them with reason and have no interest in discussing your dogma.


  • #185
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Cathal Cloch wrote: »
    One of the favoured pseudo-libertarian gibberish selective soundbites. Silicon Valley has its roots in publicly funded innovation. The internet was a publicly created system. .



    That laptop where you made that comment on was probably designed in the US, has a CPU from Ireland or Israel, has a LCD display from Korea, a battery from Thailand and assembled in China... all for the price of an average weekly wage (double if its apple!) Do you honestly think humans can centrally plan this better than the free market?


  • #186
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,687 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    jank wrote: »
    That laptop where you made that comment on was probably designed in the US, has a CPU from Ireland or Israel, has a LCD display from Korea, a battery from Thailand and assembled in China... all for the price of an average weekly wage (double if its apple!)

    Completely ignores what I've written as counterpoints...
    Do you honestly think humans can centrally plan this better than the free market?

    Cites the non existent 'free market' and contrasts its non existence against something nobody is advocating.

    Okay....

    Seeing as this is the quality of the discussion please allow me to preemptively respond to any further point you make by directing you to this little dog doing a bellyflop.


  • Advertisement
  • #187
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Cathal Cloch wrote: »
    Completely ignores what I've written as counterpoints...



    Cites the non existent 'free market' and contrasts its non existence against something nobody is advocating.

    Okay....

    Seeing as this is the quality of the discussion please allow me to preemptively respond to any further point you make by directing you to this little dog doing a bellyflop.

    And you cite no other workable alternative other than a humours gif. That is left wing poltics in a nutshell right there.


  • #188
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    jank wrote: »
    And you cite no other workable alternative other than a humours gif. That is left wing poltics in a nutshell right there.
    Tbf humorous is stretching.


  • #189
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Nitochris wrote: »
    And it happened and worked. For two years before it was forcefully repressed. Under mutual aid everyone is entitled to a fair portion of the communities produce. Edit 2: I am pointing out alternative models with actual precedent to correct a strawman you put forward in the post I first replied to that suggested central planning was the only alternative model to capitalism.
    Except it won't work long term because as you admit yourself market pressure will force the firm, one way or an other to take up the more efficient capitalist method. This may be detrimental to the workers but society as a whole benefits from their more efficient production and lower price levels.

    Granted it is an alternative, not a workable alternative but whether it's workable or not is irrelevant to it's determination as an alternative. Still, if prices are not to be centrally set by the government they are going to continue to be set indirectly by the consumers themselves and what hey are willing to pay.
    How is it my model you clearly are not reading. Given that the change to an alternative raw material happened only after worker democracy took hold and the business led capitalist management had been replaced clearly it does not happen under the current system of competition.
    Edit 3 Are you sure this will happen in the free market are we expected to believe that the bosses will reduce their pay to the same level as the workers or as happened in the cases of the Argentinian examples just no longer exist.
    That the change to alternative raw material happened only after worker democracy took hold is in this case a coincidence. It just so happened the previous owner hadn't contemplated it. But were this a competitive market and had his rivals picked up on the idea it would have spread throughout the entire region like wildfire.

    No bosses won't lower their wages to the level of workers but why should they? Their job is more demanding and stressful they should have a higher wage to compensate. Especially the owner who has invested his own personal savings into the enterprise.
    The weakness of the model actually comes from existing within the market system, and despite that many of them do survive.
    There will always be a market system unless you have central planning. You mentioned a barter system earlier, am I to pay my phone bills with chickens?
    Not at all, however not reducing people's agency to just that of the consumer.
    When it comes to the distribution of resources being a consumer is all that matters.
    When? Edit: and actually assuming by being swallowed up you mean being bought surely that means that the supposed inefficient firm has become efficient enough to be valued by owners of capital.
    Inefficiency isn't always bought, An efficient firm can take over an inefficient firm, sack the needlessly unemployed, lower the wages and lengthen the hours worked per head and viola, efficiency.


  • #190
    Zebra3
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,163 ✭✭✭✭Zebra3


    jank wrote: »
    Do you honestly think humans can centrally plan this better than the free market?

    The free market is a myth.


  • #191
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Zebra3 wrote: »
    The free market is a myth.
    Not another one. When someone says the free market they mean an unregulated market approaching the free market. It's just easier to say free market.


  • Advertisement
  • #192
    Zebra3
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,163 ✭✭✭✭Zebra3


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Not another one. When someone says the free market they mean an unregulated market approaching the free market. It's just easier to say free market.

    Where is this unregulated market? :confused:


  • #193
    Ash.J.Williams
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 22,494 ✭✭✭✭Ash.J.Williams


    The G8 summit is obscene...all that money wasted for set up photo ops and our own leader trotting behind them like a simple farm boy in a suit...any such meetings could easily be held in private...It really is elitism at it's finest...

    "Hey obama ...hey putin....we disagree totally but lets playfully touch eachother and pretend laugh at a pretend joke for the camera...."


  • #194
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Zebra3 wrote: »
    Where is this unregulated market? :confused:
    A theoretical concept, the closer one gets to a free market the more the market begins to behave as such.


  • #195
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Ash.J.Williams wrote: »
    "Hey obama ...hey putin....we disagree totally but lets playfully touch eachother and pretend laugh at a pretend joke for the camera...."
    I don't even think it is for the camera tbf, diplomacy requires leaders who hate each other to act overly nice in each other's presence.


  • #196
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    A theoretical concept, the closer one gets to a free market the more the market begins to behave as such.
    That's false. The closer you get to the 'free market' the closer you get to complete anarchy, because a free market is anarchy, since it requires zero government.

    Such a free market is totally self-destructive as well, because the principle of non-violence/coercion is only going to last a very brief period, before you see private militias beginning to fight among each other for power, eventually forming a tyrannical government.


    The purpose of the 'free market' nonsense, is to legalize fraud and put trust in the financial markets to 'self-regulate' and not commit fraud; as we can see now, after one of the biggest financial crisis ever, and a bunch of the biggest international fraud scandals in history, it was a fúcking stupid idea.

    This is why corrupt corporations, oligarchs/monopolists, finance, banks and corrupt politicians love the right-wing economic crap: It's all about legalizing fraud and enabling massive corruption/pilfering, which harms society and benefits the few in a position to commit fraud and undertake societally-harmful profits.

    I would go further, and say this is also why most people you find online debating this topic who defend that, lie through their teeth and spin garbage all the time: They are either in, or aspiring to be in, a position where they can personally benefit from this themselves (quite a large number of them, turn out to be working in finance).

    Fraud is an issue you'll never hear them address in any of these debates (except to deny that it ever happens, and that "everyone will behave in a free market we promise"), and it's one of the big things that tears a hole straight through the free-market crap.


  • #197
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    That's false. The closer you get to the 'free market' the closer you get to complete anarchy, because a free market is anarchy, since it requires zero government.

    Such a free market is totally self-destructive as well, because the principle of non-violence/coercion is only going to last a very brief period, before you see private militias beginning to fight among each other for power, eventually forming a tyrannical government.


    The purpose of the 'free market' nonsense, is to legalize fraud and put trust in the financial markets to 'self-regulate' and not commit fraud; as we can see now, after one of the biggest financial crisis ever, and a bunch of the biggest international fraud scandals in history, it was a fúcking stupid idea.

    This is why corrupt corporations, oligarchs/monopolists, finance, banks and corrupt politicians love the right-wing economic crap: It's all about legalizing fraud and enabling massive corruption/pilfering, which harms society and benefits the few in a position to commit fraud and undertake societally-harmful profits.

    I would go further, and say this is also why most people you find online debating this topic who defend that, lie through their teeth and spin garbage all the time: They are either in, or aspiring to be in, a position where they can personally benefit from this themselves (quite a large number of them, turn out to be working in finance).

    Fraud is an issue you'll never hear them address in any of these debates (except to deny that it ever happens, and that "everyone will behave in a free market we promise"), and it's one of the big things that tears a hole straight through the free-market crap.

    Let me guess, you played bioshock?


  • #198
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    That's false. The closer you get to the 'free market' the closer you get to complete anarchy, because a free market is anarchy, since it requires zero government.

    Such a free market is totally self-destructive as well, because the principle of non-violence/coercion is only going to last a very brief period, before you see private militias beginning to fight among each other for power, eventually forming a tyrannical government.
    I don't think anyone here is proposing anarcho-capitalism.
    This is why corrupt corporations, oligarchs/monopolists, finance, banks and corrupt politicians love the right-wing economic crap: It's all about legalizing fraud and enabling massive corruption/pilfering, which harms society and benefits the few in a position to commit fraud and undertake societally-harmful profits.
    It's about nothing of the sort. It's about allowing the free market to provide the most efficient products and services possible for the lowest cost possible and benefiting the entirety of society. Not just the rich, unless the rich are the only consumers in the whole country.
    I would go further, and say this is also why most people you find online debating this topic who defend that, lie through their teeth and spin garbage all the time: They are either in, or aspiring to be in, a position where they can personally benefit from this themselves (quite a large number of them, turn out to be working in finance).
    This is just wrong and frankly insulting.


  • #199
    Leftist
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,230 ✭✭✭Leftist


    maybe they are protesting against ireland's/RTE's sicophantic idolisation of the obamas?

    One guy was on RTE last night saying he almost fell over when Michelle Obama talked to him. He looked like he witnessed an appearance of the holy mother of Jesus.

    Or the general parochial nature of the RTE coverage of the summit?
    ''sure now the leaders of the free world are discussing some fierce important stuff and it could only happen in teh confines of this oversized mini-putting course. Lets now go to an Taoiseach so he can look like a starstruck child on a make a wish day out with some celebs''

    Cringefest '13.


  • #200
    Zebra3
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,163 ✭✭✭✭Zebra3


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    A theoretical concept

    So you agree that your beloved so-called free market doesn't exist?


  • #201
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    I don't think anyone here is proposing anarcho-capitalism.
    That is the only way to get a true 'free market' (which disappears in a flash, the moment you create it), so that is the standard you are aspiring to when you idolize free markets.
    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    It's about nothing of the sort. It's about allowing the free market to provide the most efficient products and services possible for the lowest cost possible and benefiting the entirety of society. Not just the rich, unless the rich are the only consumers in the whole country.
    That's the nonsense/spiel used to promote it; it just-so-happens (by complete coincidence I'm sure) to effectively legalize multiple types of fraud, the more you deregulate the markets, which does the precise opposite of what the free-market doublespeak claims.

    You can't talk about free markets or deregulation, without putting beside it in big bolded letters, the issue of fraud.
    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    This is just wrong and frankly insulting.
    The level of intellectual dishonesty you find in every one of these discussions from right-wing economic defenders is pretty offensive really; it's so consistent, from the same posters (with so many blindingly obvious instances of dishonesty over time), that for a lot of them (but by no means all), I've long given up any benefit of the doubt that it's just cognitive dissonance, and I can see that most of them know full well that they are dishonest.

    There are few things I have encountered online, more offensive than that, to be quite honest; it is far more offensive, than people who freely and honestly admit their real views/motives, even if those views happen to reflect on them quite badly.


  • Advertisement
  • #202
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Zebra3 wrote: »
    So you agree that your beloved so-called free market doesn't exist?
    A perfectly free market? No, but the concept exists and the closer you get to a free market the more the economy begins to act like one.


  • #203
    old hippy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,441 ✭✭✭old hippy


    jank wrote: »
    And you cite no other workable alternative other than a humours gif. That is left wing poltics in a nutshell right there.

    You are Ayn Rand and I claim my five pounds


  • #204
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    The purpose of the 'free market' nonsense, is to legalize fraud and put trust in the financial markets to 'self-regulate' and not commit fraud; as we can see now, after one of the biggest financial crisis ever, and a bunch of the biggest international fraud scandals in history, it was a fúcking stupid idea.
    Oh look, a few hours after I post this and I see there's a new record-setting discovery of fraud:
    http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/everything-is-rigged-vol-9-713-this-time-its-currencies-20130613

    Free Markets at work here everyone, move along; they'll start self-regulating any minute now.


  • #205
    Nitochris
    Closed Accounts Posts: 122 ✭✭Nitochris


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Except it won't work long term because as you admit yourself market pressure will force the firm, one way or an other to take up the more efficient capitalist method. This may be detrimental to the workers but society as a whole benefits from their more efficient production and lower price levels.

    Granted it is an alternative, not a workable alternative but whether it's workable or not is irrelevant to it's determination as an alternative. Still, if prices are not to be centrally set by the government they are going to continue to be set indirectly by the consumers themselves and what hey are willing to pay.
    You are mixing the examples here last I checked the free market did not play a role in the Communist's attacks on the anarchist communes. During those two years of collectivization production is believed to have increased to levels it did not have under market forces.
    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    That the change to alternative raw material happened only after worker democracy took hold is in this case a coincidence. It just so happened the previous owner hadn't contemplated it. But were this a competitive market and had his rivals picked up on the idea it would have spread throughout the entire region like wildfire.

    So it is only a coincidence that when in the aftermath of Menem's following of Thatcher style economics, these companies closed and then when the workers reopened it they were able to find as if by magic an innovative way of reducing costs.
    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    No bosses won't lower their wages to the level of workers but why should they? Their job is more demanding and stressful they should have a higher wage to compensate. Especially the owner who has invested his own personal savings into the enterprise.
    So they waste money, in the institutions with worker's democracy all members of staff shared the same level of pay. This reduced the costs required to run it and allowed them to maintain more jobs.
    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    There will always be a market system unless you have central planning. You mentioned a barter system earlier, am I to pay my phone bills with chickens?
    Funny it is usually free marketers who hold up the example of the Brehon laws to promote their vision of a minimal state and these had an extensive and codified exchange value which included wait for it barter. Edit: Not even sure why you are fixating on a throw away example I gave, the model I was suggesting was based on distribution according to need.
    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    When it comes to the distribution of resources being a consumer is all that matters.

    Tell that to these people. So how about the starving, the disabled, the poor etc. what access to resources do they get?


  • #206
    Jonny7
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    T
    The level of intellectual dishonesty you find in every one of these discussions from right-wing economic defenders is pretty offensive really; it's so consistent, from the same posters (with so many blindingly obvious instances of dishonesty over time)

    What is a right-wing economic defender?


  • #207
    old hippy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,441 ✭✭✭old hippy


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    What is a right-wing economic defender?

    I'd say about 50% of the posters on boards, at any given time...


  • #208
    Cody Pomeray
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭Cody Pomeray


    jank wrote: »
    It is not the governments problem nor its fault, or the faults of the banks if you cannot get a job after finishing college.
    That's why, unlike you jank, I'm not embarking on my autobiography here. I briefly used my own example in conjunction with a wider fact, that being of a trend in graduate unemployment and emigration, even in what are deemed to be 'useful' courses of study like science, commerce, and engineering.

    It certainly is the Government's problem when
    (i) firms are not investing in productive capacity, and
    (ii) when well educated (and expensively educated) graduates are seeking work elsewhere, or going jobless at home.

    This is the basis of my suggestion for intervention.

    The rest of your post is vague ranting deliberately avoiding an engagement with facts, and I'm sure you'll agree does not deserve any substantial reply.


  • #209
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Nitochris wrote: »
    You are mixing the examples here last I checked the free market did not play a role in the Communist's attacks on the anarchist communes. During those two years of collectivization production is believed to have increased to levels it did not have under market forces.
    Even if that was the case pointing out that production increased in this one specific instance is not evidence to show workers communes are more efficient then free market companies in general. If your staff levels are too high, their wages are too high (since they set their own) and there's no way to get rid of slackers then price is going to increase as the cost of production increases, demand is going to fall and as a result the output level is going to fall. You have no answer to this because it's the truth, the free market is the most efficient system of production.
    So it is only a coincidence that when in the aftermath of Menem's following of Thatcher style economics, these companies closed and then when the workers reopened it they were able to find as if by magic an innovative way of reducing costs.
    Yes, it was. Innovation happens in the free market all the time. I have inmy hand a smart phone that couldn't have existed four years ago. Cadbury flakes were invented when one of the workers noticed the residue chocolate left in the vats was tasty. These are both examples of innovation that happens in the free market.
    So they waste money, in the institutions with worker's democracy all members of staff shared the same level of pay. This reduced the costs required to run it and allowed them to maintain more jobs.
    It's not a waste of money because it drives the workers to aspire to leadership positions. With your idea of rotating terms no aspiration is needed. A worker would simply have to doss around til it's his turn to be boss.

    Funny it is usually free marketers who hold up the example of the Brehon laws to promote their vision of a minimal state and these had an extensive and codified exchange value which included wait for it barter. Edit: Not even sure why you are fixating on a throw away example I gave, the model I was suggesting was based on distribution according to need.
    Who mentioned Brehon laws? I didn't. I'll ask you again since you didn't answer. Under your barter system would I have to pay my phone bills in Chicken or Meat Loaf? I ask because the Chicken might go bad in transit.
    The logic of the eugenicist. Tell that to these people. So how about the starving, the disabled, the poor etc. what access to resources do they get?
    No one mentioned eugenics either and we're not talking about the people of Bangladesh.


  • #210
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Cody Pomeray wrote: »
    It certainly is the Government's problem when
    (i) firms are not investing in productive capacity, and
    (ii) when well educated (and expensively educated) graduates are seeking work elsewhere, or going jobless at home.
    Except it's not in either of those cases the government's business.


  • Advertisement
  • #211
    Nitochris
    Closed Accounts Posts: 122 ✭✭Nitochris


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »


    It's not a waste of money because it drives the workers to aspire to leadership positions. With your idea of rotating terms no aspiration is needed. A worker would simply have to doss around til it's his turn to be boss.

    There are these little things called elections in a democracy it is not based on taking turns. So if you are seen as not pulling your weight you don't get elected.
    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    I'll ask you again since you didn't answer. Under your barter system would I have to pay my phone bills in Chicken or Meat Loaf? I ask because the Chicken might go bad in transit.
    To repeat from the section you quoted on barter:
    Edit: Not even sure why you are fixating on a throw away example I gave, the model I was suggesting was based on distribution according to need.
    So as you can see I did in fact address the question.
    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    No one mentioned eugenics either and we're not talking about the people of Bangladesh.
    I withdrew the eugenics comment possibly just as you posted your response [Edit: time stamp says 3 minutes before].

    As for Bangladesh it appears that you fail to understand that the conditions that led to that disaster are the same global free market which you are lauding.


Advertisement