We Really Don't Have To Do This Anymore...

Saipanne · 25-10-2014 09:21PM

Karl Stein wrote: »

That's not necessarily inevitable. East Germany transformed bloodlessly from socialist dictatorship to something quite different in a matter of days.

I don't think it was quite that dramatic. Its not as if they went from Stalanism to Free Markets in a few weeks. In my understanding, many European communist blocs had evolved over time from an attempt at pure communism to a mixed model, over decades.

Also, to my memory, transititions from communism to capitalism have been less chaotic, than the reverse. Although both are very messy.

looksee · 25-10-2014 09:26PM

At what level do 'the people' (the ones who are going to be revolting) become the elite? If you own a small business employing say 10 people, does that make a person elite, and therefore to be revolted against? Or maybe 1000 people? 10,000? Presumably the government is elite, what about civil servants? How far down the pecking order do you go to decide who will be revolted against? And how exactly do you identify the people you are revolting against, any one wearing a suit to work? Particular car size, how does it work? Then the elite pull the plugs on internet, transport, power, communications, so how are you going to organise the revolution?

How will you threaten the elite? How will you keep feeding 'the people' if all the top people are gone? You would probably have to give some of 'the people' responsibility to keep things moving, yes that would work, and they would run things....

Wurly · 25-10-2014 09:27PM

Saipanne wrote: »

I don't think it was quite that dramatic. Its not as if they went from Stalanism to Free Markets in a few weeks. In my understanding, many European communist blocs had evolved over time from an attempt at pure communism to a mixed model, over decades.

Also, to my memory, transititions from communism to capitalism have been less chaotic, than the reverse. Although both are very messy.

I don't think anyone is saying that this will be a quick fix. But we have to start change in order for it to materialise.

bnt · 25-10-2014 09:27PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

I think that people in general, don't realize just how messed up our current economic system is, and are unaware of how easy it is (economically) to reform it to work better - it doesn't even have to involve ditching capitalism, but in enhancing it instead, to work better.

I think that people in general, don't realize that they mostly did it to themselves. No-one forced people to over-extend themselves with excessive borrowing, jumping on the "housing ladder" at all costs. This world is over-populated and running out of some resources, yet people insist on exercising their "right" to procreate, because "that's what you do", roysh?

Just because someone's selling a "dream", doesn't mean you have to buy it. If we really want to reform "the system", we should start by reforming ourselves. In my opinion, that is.

Wurly · 25-10-2014 09:30PM

bnt wrote: »

I think that people in general, don't realize that they mostly did it to themselves. No-one forced people to over-extend themselves with excessive borrowing, jumping on the "housing ladder" at all costs. This world is over-populated and running out of some resources, yet people insist on exercising their "right" to procreate, because "that's what you do", roysh?

Just because someone's selling a "dream", doesn't mean you have to buy it. If we really want to reform "the system", we should start by reforming ourselves. In my opinion, that is.

Yes but let's not blame each other. We are all legitimately doing the best we can with the information that we've got. Now that new information is emerging, we can make different choices.

Karl Stein · 25-10-2014 09:33PM

Saipanne wrote: »

In my understanding, many European communist blocs had evolved over time from an attempt at pure communism to a mixed model, over decades.

They were more socialist than communist, I believe. Russia was the Soviet state that attempted communism, the Eastern Bloc countries were more socialist iirc. They had a degree of autonomy from Moscow until the people got too restless and then the tanks would roll in al la Hungary 1956.

Also, to my memory, transititions from communism to capitalism have been less chaotic, than the reverse. Although both are very messy.

I agree. I don't think anyone is advocating a 'nationalise everything' socialist revolution.

bnt · 25-10-2014 09:34PM

Wurly wrote: »

Yes but let's not blame each other. We are all legitimately doing the best we can with the information that we've got. Now that new information is emerging, we can make different choices.

I'm not "blaming": this just ties in to my previous post on this thread, the one in which I wished we could increase everyone's IQ by 30 points ... then we all could do so much more with the information we've got. Just having useful opinions on these topics puts us in a very small minority.

DeadHand · 25-10-2014 09:36PM

History is littered with examples of groups of powerless people seizing power with great ideals who slowly become as bad or worse than the people they deposed. In fact, after a generation or two the same families will rise to the top regardless of any changes in system.

Anything can be changed, except human nature. Regardless of your beliefs you will use any power you attain to advance yourself, your family, your friends.

We live in a peaceful, stable, affluent and liberal society. It's not perfect, it can never be. But it's still a thousand times better than, for instance, Saudi Arabia, Soviet Russia or Ireland in the 50s.

If you study history you'll know we're lucky whether we realise it or not.

Wurly · 25-10-2014 09:38PM

bnt wrote: »

I'm not "blaming": this just ties in to my previous post on this thread, the one in which I wished we could increase everyone's IQ by 30 points ... then we all could do so much more with the information we've got. Just having useful opinions on these topics puts us in a very small minority.

My apologies.

And my apology to anyone who feels I am pushing an agenda.

For the people who would like to see change to the ways we do things, I invite us all to have a discussion on this.

I think our system is in dire need of overhaul because our current one has caused such massive devastation. I want this for me, for you, and for everyone else, equally.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1 · 25-10-2014 09:45PM

Wurly wrote: »

My apologies.

And my apology to anyone who feels I am pushing an agenda.

For the people who would like to see change to the ways we do things, I invite us all to have a discussion on this.

I think our system is in dire need of overhaul because our current one has caused such massive devastation. I want this for me, for you, and for everyone else, equally.

Yipee! A one sided discussion. That augers well for the great new world order.
Please don't claim to want your changes for me or my family, thank you.

Colser · 25-10-2014 09:56PM

Jaelyn Tangy Newsstand wrote: »

Yipee! A one sided discussion. That augers well for the great new world order.
Please don't claim to want your changes for me or my family, thank you.

Not having a dig here Jaelyn Tangy Newsstand but I would have thought that as an enviromentalist(sp) that you would genuinely have concerns about some of the issues mentioned in the OP.I have and I have no real interest in such things normally but I do worry for my kids and grandkids...I know that the world has always changed and developed but I do think that something has to give at some stage if we dont start to make some changes. Then again maybe these worries are age related or just me:)

One eyed Jack · 25-10-2014 09:57PM

Wurly wrote: »

My apologies.

And my apology to anyone who feels I am pushing an agenda.

For the people who would like to see change to the ways we do things, I invite us all to have a discussion on this.

I think our system is in dire need of overhaul because our current one has caused such massive devastation. I want this for me, for you, and for everyone else, equally.

I'll let you in on a little secret so you can know what it's like to be an elite -

If you think what we have now is massive devastation, go talk to someone who actually has some perspective on history.

I want you to do that for you. I'm quite happy with my life, and I think you'll be happier with yours once you've gotten some perspective on just how good you have it.

forgotten password · 25-10-2014 10:05PM

Das System ist das Problem, ja

Frank Lee Midere · 25-10-2014 10:17PM

renegademaster wrote: »

brand has lots of ideas about plenty and again are all books sold for cash to be rubbished?

It's to be pointed out. If he is really opposed to capitalism there is a way to not make himself an even richer member of the 0.1% than he already is. Give the book away rather than demand money in the electronic cash nexus.

These days it's easy. In the past the radicals ( see RAGM) would claim that using the system was the only way to disseminate ideas but free hard copy books or CDs costs money to send out, free electronic books or music costs nothing to disseminate. In fact the evil corporations will host the bits for free.

Frank Lee Midere · 25-10-2014 10:23PM

Karl Stein wrote: »

They were more socialist than communist, I believe. Russia was the Soviet state that attempted communism, the Eastern Bloc countries were more socialist iirc. They had a degree of autonomy from Moscow until the people got too restless and then the tanks would roll in al la Hungary 1956.

I agree. I don't think anyone is advocating a 'nationalise everything' socialist revolution.

No. Nobody is advocating anything. The booky wooky half wit is convincing his dumb followers to part with more money to make him richer and younger people not to vote for a "revolution" which precisely defines not one political or economic change.

I haven't got an answer on a few remedial questions I asked. Inheritance tax? Capital gains tax?

looksee · 25-10-2014 10:26PM

Colser wrote: »

Not having a dig here Srameen but I would have thought that as an enviromentalist(sp) that you would genuinely have concerns about some of the issues mentioned in the OP.I have and I have no real interest in such things normally but I do worry for my kids and grandkids...I know that the world has always changed and developed but I do think that something has to give at some stage if we dont start to make some changes. Then again maybe these worries are age related or just me:)

The last thing environmentalists want is a revolution - just think of the pollution those burning barricades will create!

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1 · 25-10-2014 10:28PM

Colser wrote: »

Not having a dig here Srameen but I would have thought that as an enviromentalist(sp) that you would genuinely have concerns about some of the issues mentioned in the OP.I have and I have no real interest in such things normally but I do worry for my kids and grandkids...I know that the world has always changed and developed but I do think that something has to give at some stage if we dont start to make some changes. Then again maybe these worries are age related or just me:)

Unfortunately there is an awful lot more to this from the OP than just climate change. I'm taking my stance based on an overall perspective including equality, quality of life, etc.

KomradeBishop · 25-10-2014 10:31PM

bnt wrote: »

I think that people in general, don't realize that they mostly did it to themselves. No-one forced people to over-extend themselves with excessive borrowing, jumping on the "housing ladder" at all costs. This world is over-populated and running out of some resources, yet people insist on exercising their "right" to procreate, because "that's what you do", roysh?

Just because someone's selling a "dream", doesn't mean you have to buy it. If we really want to reform "the system", we should start by reforming ourselves. In my opinion, that is.

I don't get this narrative - instead of discussing solutions, people just look for a place to lay blame (in this case blaming 'everyone'/'society'), and then there's this kind of "that's that. their fault, nothing more to be done about." type of attitude that follows it.

It's really just an argument for maintaining the status quo.

We're not going to solve the problem of (for example) impending climate change, or an unstable banking/monetary system, by ignoring all the problems with our economic system that are perpetuating that, safe in the 'knowledge' that we've found somewhere to lay the blame for all its faults - without doing anything about those faults.

Frank Lee Midere · 25-10-2014 10:41PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

I don't get this narrative - instead of discussing solutions, people just look for a place to lay blame (in this case blaming 'everyone'/'society'), and then there's this kind of "that's that. their fault, nothing more to be done about." type of attitude that follows it.

It's really just an argument for maintaining the status quo.

We're not going to solve the problem of (for example) impending climate change, or an unstable banking/monetary system, by ignoring all the problems with our economic system that are perpetuating that, safe in the 'knowledge' that we've found somewhere to lay the blame for all its faults - without doing anything about those faults.

I'm still waiting for anybody to suggest anything except making a donation to a middle aged druggie with wandering hands.

Also the guy you quoted didn't blame everybody - he blamed people who overextended during the boom.

buried · 25-10-2014 10:42PM

DeadHand wrote: »

History is littered with examples of groups of powerless people seizing power with great ideals who slowly become as bad or worse than the people they deposed. In fact, after a generation or two the same families will rise to the top regardless of any changes in system.

Anything can be changed, except human nature. Regardless of your beliefs you will use any power you attain to advance yourself, your family, your friends.

We live in a peaceful, stable, affluent and liberal society. It's not perfect, it can never be. But it's still a thousand times better than, for instance, Saudi Arabia, Soviet Russia or Ireland in the 50s.

If you study history you'll know we're lucky whether we realise it or not.

This is very true, but if you look at history you will see the warnings of countless established empires that based their existence on a closed up shop of their own self-determined established order.

The problem is, that when some outside force upsets or effects this order, the comfortable, closed up shop establishment cannot, or will not deal with it because they don't know how to, or refuse to. They become complacent, comfortable and in turn totally blind and sideswiped.

This kind of situation is just around the corner for our present time, whether it be through climate change or the dwindling supply of fossil fuels. Probably both. And our established power structure refuses to deal with these actual problems that will end up affecting our world and the people that have to live in it. And its down to greed and money, as it always has been, and its going to happen again.

Karl Stein · 25-10-2014 10:48PM

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

The booky wooky half wit is convincing his dumb followers to part with more money to make him richer and younger people not to vote for a "revolution" which precisely defines not one political or economic change.

Why does he make you so angry? We have no idea what he does with his money. He could be giving it all away for all we know. I think I recall RB saying that the policies he advocates would see his wealth diminish.

I haven't got an answer on a few remedial questions I asked. Inheritance tax? Capital gains tax?

Are you talking about the remedial effects of capital gains tax and Inheritance tax? You're aware there's an awful lot of people who think there's nothing at all to be remedied when it comes to concentrating wealth/power in the hands of the few?

Wurly · 25-10-2014 10:49PM

Jaelyn Tangy Newsstand wrote: »

Yipee! A one sided discussion. That augers well for the great new world order.
Please don't claim to want your changes for me or my family, thank you.

No - not a one sided discussion. We can all learn from one another. Nothing is black and white. The people who want change can discuss ideas. Maybe that in itself might encourage debate from the people that don't. Either way, it's the discussion that's important.

Here's the thing mate, I want change for EVERYONE and that includes you and your family. I don't want any of us to have to endure a failing and damaging model that is currently being imposed on us.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'll let you in on a little secret so you can know what it's like to be an elite -

If you think what we have now is massive devastation, go talk to someone who actually has some perspective on history.

I want you to do that for you. I'm quite happy with my life, and I think you'll be happier with yours once you've gotten some perspective on just how good you have it.

I have no doubt that I have it good. I never said I didn't. But there is a huge wealth divide on this planet, people are starving, the planet is being polluted and entire species are dying out. So just because I have a cosy bed to sleep in every night, doesn't mean I can't care about these issues. Without the planet, none of us really have a home in the first place.

I have a perspective on history. Are you claiming I don't? I'm interested on what you've based that on.

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

I'm still waiting for anybody to suggest anything except making a donation to a middle aged druggie with wandering hands..

So you're ageist? And you're judgemental. I'm not sure that contributes positively to anything. People are not allowed make mistakes? I know you're better than this!

DeadHand · 25-10-2014 11:04PM

buried wrote: »

This is very true, but if you look at history you will see the warnings of countless established empires that based their existence on a closed up shop of their own self-determined established order.

The problem is, that when some outside force upsets or effects this order, the comfortable, closed up shop establishment cannot, or will not deal with it because they don't know how to, or refuse to. They become complacent, comfortable and in turn totally blind and sideswiped.

This kind of situation is just around the corner for our present time, whether it be through climate change or the dwindling supply of fossil fuels. Probably both. And our established power structure refuses to deal with these actual problems that will end up affecting our world and the people that have to live in it. And its down to greed and money, as it always has been, and its going to happen again.

So, do you propose that "we" replace the "established power structure"?

If so, with what?

How will this replacement solve the apparently calamitous problems you mentioned?

Frank Lee Midere · 25-10-2014 11:04PM

Wurly wrote: »

So you're ageist? And you're judgemental. I'm not sure that contributes positively to anything. People are not allowed make mistakes? I know you're better than this!

I think you're deliberately picking minor points out of arguments to support your supposed agenda. I mention his age because Brand is positioning himself as a yoof representative

However I am still not getting any specifics on what exactly you would change. Give us one concrete policy on property tax or capital gains tax.

Frank Lee Midere · 25-10-2014 11:08PM

Karl Stein wrote: »

Why does he make you so angry? We have no idea what he does with his money. He could be giving it all away for all we know. I think I recall RB saying that the policies he advocates would see his wealth diminish.

Are you talking about the remedial effects of capital gains tax and Inheritance tax? You're aware there's an awful lot of people who think there's nothing at all to be remedied when it comes to concentrating wealth/power in the hands of the few?

I am in favour in general of a 100% inheritance tax. Search my posts.

I was just wondering what followers of the IQ deficient but shouty ex Big Brothers Big Mouth presenter have have to say.

Apparantly nothing.

If this was a discussion on Piketty it might be interesting but it isn't. Piketty is hard to read.

Brand is no socialist. Nor is he a radical. Nobody becomes or stays rich unless they aim to become or stay rich. He's pretty dumb but has swallowed a thesaurus along the way and impresses weak minds to give him more money to,um, start a revolution which won't happen, isn't explained and isn't making him any poorer.

Wurly · 25-10-2014 11:11PM

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

I think you're deliberately picking minor points out of arguments to support your supposed agenda. I mention his age because Brand is positioning himself as a yoof representative

It's not just the youth he supports. It's everyone.

However I am still not getting any specifics on what exactly you would change. Give us one concrete policy on property tax or capital gains tax.

You're not getting them because I am asking for people's opinions on what they would like to see change. And from there, WE (myself and yourselves) can come up with solutions. We need a consensus first that people want change before we can decide what to do. I certainly don't have all the answers and I never once said that I did.

I would like to see a better, fairer life for everyone. I don't know why I am receiving such a high level of abuse for this. Shouldn't you be angry at the pollution of the planet? Or that some people have billions upon billions yet some people starve? What is being angry at me for the mere notion of suggesting change going to do?

Frank Lee Midere · 25-10-2014 11:17PM

Wurly wrote: »

It's not just the youth he supports. It's everyone.

You're not getting them because I am asking for people's opinions on what they would like to see change. And from there, WE (myself and yourselves) can come up with solutions. We need a consensus first that people want change before we can decide what to do. I certainly don't have all the answers and I never once said that I did.

I would like to see a better, fairer life for everyone. I don't know why I am receiving such a high level of abuse for this. Shouldn't you be angry at the pollution of the planet? Or that some people have billions upon billions yet some people starve? What is being angry at me for the mere notion of suggesting change going to do?

Why don't you read Piketty or Stiglitz and come back to the economics forum.

( and don't expect a concencus anywhere).

Wurly · 25-10-2014 11:19PM

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

Why don't you read Piketty or Stiglitz and come back to the economics forum.

( and don't expect a concencus anywhere).

And why don't you post elsewhere if you have nothing of value to contribute to the discussion of creating change?

This is my thread so i'll be staying right here, thank you very much.

buried · 25-10-2014 11:23PM

DeadHand wrote: »

So, do you propose that "we" replace the "established power structure"?

If so, with what?

How will this replacement solve the apparently calamitous problems you mentioned?

In all fairness, I never said that. It won't be replaced, it never is replaced, it relies on its comfortable complacency and its complacency is real, and it gets caught out. History has shown this, numerous times. And it will happen again.

Karl Stein · 25-10-2014 11:27PM

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

I was just wondering what followers of the IQ deficient but shouty ex Big Brothers Big Mouth presenter have have to say.

Apparantly nothing.

Well feck me I had no idea I was a follower of his until you just told me. Have you had a few whiskies Frank?

If this was a discussion on Piketty it might be interesting but it isn't. Piketty is hard to read.

Picketty has a number of interesting talks on youtube and they're not too heady. I think Brand might appeal to a younger audience though because of his celeb profile. My own opinion of RB is that he's used as a 'court jester' by the mainstream media. If you can attribute criticisms of the status quo to a 'jester' you can discredit the criticisms as being just as silly as the jester - dissent is stigmatised.

Nobody becomes it stays rich unless they aim to become or stay rich. He's pretty dumb but has swallowed a thesaurus along the way and impresses weak minds to give him more money to,um, start a revolution which won't happen, isn't explained and isn't making him any poorer

So you think this whole revolution thing is just Brand looking to increase his estate?

We Really Don't Have To Do This Anymore...

Comments