 sj |
||
|
||
BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 16 May 08 - 01:22 PM Capitalism does not actively encourage or discourage waste, greed, or any other evil, Ake. This is the point where I feel your cart is being pushed rather than pulled. Capitalism supplies employment, employment supplies income, income gives the power to purchase what we need or what we WANT. Capitalism by employing us produces that which we may need or want to purchase. What we do with that purchasing power is OUR responsibility, and we can be as greedy, or as frugal as WE choose. Nobody forces us to overconsume, or to waste resources. The supply is put in front of us, and WE make our own decisions. There are "isms" which dictate what we may or may not, and in some cases what we must or must not, do. Capitalism is one of the very few that does not, so if we want to blame somebody for our excesses, I'm afraid we must look closer to home for the culprit,.....Perhaps a mirror? Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty From: akenaton Date: 16 May 08 - 05:18 PM Well, i don't think we should be too hard on ourselves Don, bombarded as we are about the sorts of things we should buy to make our lives complete. The message of Capitalism is insidious and designed to appeal to our baser instincts ...I will agree with you there..its a powerful message and will take many generation to wash from our psyche. Then again maybe it wont take so long. I remember as a child, a society which offered status as a measure of worth, not money. Doctors, public officials, policemen, builders were given a certain status in that society, money did not enter the equation to any extent, as all in that society we relatively poor. The society worked pretty well, as every soul was made to feel that they were contributing in one way or another. To day money is God, and I suppose you are right we invented God; but Capitalism was the catalyst. The crux of my argument is that lifestyle supported by Capitalism is utterly unsustainable...Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 16 May 08 - 06:04 PM Well my friend, as you say we tend to disagree about the definitions, but if it comes to changing the status quo, we'll BOTH need to do quite a bit of rethinking to find an alternative that IS sustainable. It's the kids and Grandkids I worry about. The worst I have to fear is that I'll wind up as fertiliser when they have to plant food crops in the cemetery. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty From: Teribus Date: 17 May 08 - 05:43 AM "I remember as a child, a society which offered status as a measure of worth, not money. Doctors, public officials, policemen, builders were given a certain status in that society, money did not enter the equation to any extent, as all in that society we relatively poor. The society worked pretty well, as every soul was made to feel that they were contributing in one way or another." - Akenaton Ah yes Akenaton those good old days when everyone knew their place - far, far better than today eh? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty From: akenaton Date: 17 May 08 - 03:44 PM Yes Teribus there was good and bad in that old society Today we have a whole generation of lost children afloat in a word with no place for them, an ever increasing army of old people who have ceased to be of any use to the system and a hindrance to their families....if families still exist! A workforce holding down multiple jobs in an effort to pay credit charges and morgage payments to the later day outlaws of the banking industry. I bet most would chose to trade their slavery for a place in a real society...Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty From: Big Al Whittle Date: 17 May 08 - 03:59 PM Its not so much that everybody knew their place - its more that it was a pretty shitty place for most of us. No matter what the state of ones knowledge on the subject. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty From: Teribus Date: 18 May 08 - 07:08 AM Akenaton, have a really good read of this: "Capitalism supplies employment, employment supplies income, income gives the power to purchase what we need or what we WANT. Capitalism by employing us produces that which we may need or want to purchase. What we do with that purchasing power is OUR responsibility, and we can be as greedy, or as frugal as WE choose. Nobody forces us to overconsume, or to waste resources. The supply is put in front of us, and WE make our own decisions. There are "isms" which dictate what we may or may not, and in some cases what we must or must not, do. Capitalism is one of the very few that does not, so if we want to blame somebody for our excesses, I'm afraid we must look closer to home for the culprit,.....Perhaps a mirror?" - Don(Wyziwyg)T Don has got it summed up there perfectly. By the bye you don't obtain a "society" off-the-shelf - people make whatever society they CHOSE to live in - Oh Dear there is that thing called personal choice cropping up again. As for your: "Today we have a whole generation of lost children afloat in a word with no place for them, an ever increasing army of old people who have ceased to be of any use to the system and a hindrance to their families....if families still exist! A workforce holding down multiple jobs in an effort to pay credit charges and morgage payments to the later day outlaws of the banking industry." We have a whole generation of lost children afloat in a word with no place for them Akenaton because the so-called "Baby Boomer" generation turned out to be by and large absolutely useless parents, nothing to do with with what was on offer in the shops. The loss of "family" again down to personal choice, the halcyon days you hark back to were governed by belief in education, respect for education, people knew and acknowledged what their responsibilities were, they did not shirk duty, they had respect for themselves and each other, they possessed that vital tool for living called self-discipline. They did not endlessly hammer on about what their rights were, they did not always adopt the line of least resistance in order to take the easy way out. The circumstance that drives people to hold down multiple low pay minimum wage jobs was brought about by a total disregard and disrespect for education and personal expectation far outstripping the personal ability to achieve. Everything that can be has been dumbed down so that everybody is an "achiever" even if the achievement is worthless. What the country needs are mathematicians, scientists, doctors, nurses and engineers, not thousands of basket case degrees in social studies. Nothing whatsoever to do with "Capitalism" Akenaton, your, "Well, i don't think we should be too hard on ourselves" sums up perfectly what is wrong - Somebody else's fault again - grow up, high time a hell of a lot of people did that in the UK. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty From: autolycus Date: 18 May 08 - 07:14 AM Still so many points just get plain ignored. That is one basic way the talkboards I know about, function. e.g. Without Labour, stuff would not be bought. So the better they're paid, the more they'd buy, and the more profits would be made. While the point about Labour as a cost has been addressed, and justifies, tis one hasn't been. Again, the point that people are under the illusion that buying/ consuming brings satisfaction. or that the system finds ways to keep consuming going. My example was CDs, the introduction of which led people to buy what they already had all over again. Or that fashion and fads are other ways to keep consuming going. Or that shareholder strength is a driver for growth of consumption. Or that if the poor cannot be lifted in a rich country now, what do the circumstances have to be when they will? or why we had a 'trickle-down' theory and not a 'cascade-down' theory. Or the connection between the introduction of Capitalism in Russia and China and the explosive emergence of a load of millionaires/billionaires. Teri said advertising doesn't get people to buy more than they need or want. Breathtaking. If you all really think we don't know the importance of consuming to our society, and nobody has forced the point on us, tell us what you think the consequences would be if everyone no longer found mortgages, more clothes, cars, holidays, replacement kitchens, insurance, more food than for survival, drink, DIY, gardening stuff, the latest gadgets, if we no longer found them necessary for our happiness or satisfaction? Ivor |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 18 May 08 - 07:28 AM "Or the connection between the introduction of Capitalism in Russia and China and the explosive emergence of a load of millionaires/billionaires." Disingenuous comment of the month, without a doubt. The millionaires were always there, but they didn't advertise. Do you REALLY think the Politburo, and the Chinese equivalent lived on potato soup, or a handful of rice?? The millions just got transferred, and those newly rich are probably paying wages to their workers which, though low by our standards, are more than they could have DREAMED about under communism. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty From: Teribus Date: 18 May 08 - 12:01 PM Just to get some sort of reality check here a question for Akenaton and Ivor: "How many Russians were members of the Communist Party" Population was 293,047,571 in 1991. In 1989 the Party had 19,000,000 members. That is roughly 6.48% of the population Ake, Ivor. Now tell us do you think that they were treated the same as everybody else in Russia, or did Party Membership carry with it enormous privileges - Animal Farm, Ivor "All animals are equal except that some animals are more equal than others". As Don T says the millionaires were already there, Lenin, Stalin, et al, they just replaced the Russian Tsarist Aristocracy with their version of it - "Workers of the World Unite" indeed - Complete and utter load of bollocks if you ask me and they all knew it from day one. Yet even with all those gullible little epsilons beavering away night and day the system they worked under failed to feed them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty From: autolycus Date: 18 May 08 - 02:23 PM I see you have both responded to but a single one of the points I re-raised , (and,interestingly, the same one - namely the one not about US but but about NOT-US). Imf(airly)io, you are both under an illusion if you believe that the millionaires simply were given their millions by alleged 'old millionaires'. That is either lack of knowledge, or re-writing history, (a practice not solely indulged in by the Left). The correct information is out there a-plenty. Consequently, I notice that of all the points I repeated, all the rest has been ignored again. Btw, apparently the true figure of the proportion of food thrown away in the UK is actually about 20%. The 'fact' that people in the UK throw away is one third turns out to be true only when such things as vegetable peelings and bones were included in the calculation. Ivor |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty From: GUEST,lox Date: 18 May 08 - 07:08 PM Teribus. You appear to have "animal farm" and "brave new world" confused. And I waould argue also that you have misused BNW as an example. I see BNW as a fairly accurate prediction of twenty first century western culture. Soma = ectstacy Orwell and Huxley were two quite different characters dealing with contrasting material. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 18 May 08 - 08:39 PM Auto, The reason I only made response to one point in your post was quite simply due to the fact that all the other points you made had already been answered in my previous one. They all lump together in the category of "blame the system for our own individual faults". If I believed, as you apparently do, that the whole human race was too stupid and gullible to be held responsible for its own individual actions, I believe I would cease to care what happened to it. As to the millionaire/billionaire point, of course I didn't think that the money was gifted from one lot to the next. I was simply pointing out the naivete of believing that communist states had no rich/privileged class. The rulers in any authoritarian system live as well as any capitalists, but generally the lower orders are considerably worse off than in capitalist states, where opportunity for advancement also exists. As has been said before, judge a state by the number of people who are prepared to die to get out, and so called socialist states don't stack up at all well. Just look at the queues of people at Sangat awaiting a chance to sneak INTO our capitalist state. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty From: Teribus Date: 19 May 08 - 01:01 AM No confusion Lox, the first quote was from Animal Farm and identified as such. The term "epsilon" is from BNW but was not attributed as it was only the term used. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty From: akenaton Date: 19 May 08 - 02:53 AM The really interesting point is that Don and T maintain that the people, not the system control the direction of travel in a society. Why then, when sections of society rise in protest, are they...the conservatives, the ones who scream loudest to bring in the army! Capitalism and Communism cynically manipulate consumers in all societies. At this moment they are doing their best to convince us that we should carry on the status quo regardless of the damage we are doing to our environment. The system is more important than life on Earth! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 19 May 08 - 05:53 AM ""Why then, when sections of society rise in protest, are they...the conservatives, the ones who scream loudest to bring in the army! Capitalism and Communism cynically manipulate consumers in all societies. At this moment they are doing their best to convince us that we should carry on the status quo regardless of the damage we are doing to our environment."" Have the army started wearing blue uniforms and pointy hats while I wasn't looking?? As far as I can recall (and I'm sure I'll be told LOUD and LONG if I'm wrong), the army has been called in twice in mainland UK in the last century. 1. To root out a nest of terrorists in Sidney Street, London, back when Winston Churchill was Home Secretary. 2. The Iranian embassy seige when the SAS went in to save hostages. They are obviously wildy eager, and ready to start shootng people at the drop of a hat. As to manipulation, is there some far off corner of the nation where you are being made to consume at gunpoint?? If not, then they can only manipulate you if YOU let them. It's a dark and scary world you inhabit, where your will and intellect is being subverted by unseen forces. I guess I must be very lucky. I buy only what I want, and, if I feel that doing this will harm others or the planet, then I buy only what I NEED. I hate this bloody government, but they CANNOT be accused of defending the status quo. Credit where it's due, they are working harder than most on dealing with climate change (now I'll have to go and wash my mouth out, after praising New Labour), and the Tories are supporting it, in fact many of the initiatives have been pinched from the Tories. David Cameron has said on TV that he doesn't mind Brown using his (Cameron's) ideas, as it doesn't matter who thought of them first, as long as they are acted upon. I have never heard a politician say anything like that before. (Interview on "SUNDAY" hosted by Andrew Marr....BBC1). Don T. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty From: GUEST,lox Date: 19 May 08 - 06:40 AM An innocent mixing of metaphors then ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty From: GUEST,Jim Martin Date: 19 May 08 - 07:33 AM They may have called the army in twice in the last century but I wonder how many times the police were called in when incidents like the miners' strike in the 1980's occurred? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty From: Teribus Date: 19 May 08 - 12:06 PM Hey Akenaton and Ivor a useful little exercise to go through: 1. List all the things that you have spent your money on during the last year. 2. Out of that list detail in Column A - Essentials that I needed. 3. Out of that list detail in Column B - Additional "essentials" that I purchased because advised or compelled to do by outside influences (Evil Corporate Capitalists, Advertising Agencies, "Peer" Pressure). 4. Out of that list detail in Column C - Non-essential, or luxury items purchased purely because YOU wanted them. 5. Out of that list detail in Column D - Non-essential, or luxury items that you purchased because advised or compelled to do by outside influences. I've done it - Guess what you two: Column A made up the bulk, food, clothes, medical expenses, biggest item was house repairs. Column B was empty Column C was expenses involved in going to festivals and holiday. Column D was empty. Let me know how you got on with it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty From: autolycus Date: 19 May 08 - 02:21 PM Don, oddly, I agree considerably about taking personal responsibility to a considerable degree. Two observations about that. Firstly, when i have brought up the idea of taking one's own responsibility, the usual response is for posters to flee the thread. And I can understand that because I know how resistant people are to taking their responsibility. Hence the persistance and commonness of expressions like 'what else could I do?'; 'I had no choice'; 'that's just the way I am'; 'it was fated'; 'it was bound to happen'; 'it was inevitable'; 'i always do that, but i don't know why'. Secondly, and on the other hand, with the points of mine that I still say have gone unanswered,I can't see where responsibility comes in. E.g. that Labour purchasing power is needed to buy the goods we produce and want or need; that there are fashions and must-haves in all fields; why the poor are so rampant in a very rich country (in a poor country i can see it); all those Russian and Chinese billionaires; the lack of relationship between consumption and satisfaction (do you know much about addiction in its many forms?; and so on.) To say my points amount to 'blaming the system for our individual faults', is just false. E.g., it's not the fault of individuals in the Labour Force that wages can be kept under tight control, nor that wages need to be high enough to consume what's produced. Nor that shareholders demand growing profits. And I'm not saying this is all about human stupidity - more about fitting into the society one finds oneself in, learning that questioning the bases of society is thought not a good idea, and lacking the responsibility you talk of to examine and question. Taking personal responsibility is as two-edged a sword as anything else. Incidentally, for all the talk of regarding others as stupid, the assertion that we've had 750,000 minimum unemployed since the war because there's always a feckless rump of layabouts, is untrue (and not holding that part of the unemployed in the highest regard). I seem to remember (haven't checked So I must say, you (and Teri) are just not addressing the substantive problems. Merely seeking to dismiss them with vague gestures, light misdescription, and red herrings. And I see no need to propose an alternative system. A close critical examination of what we already have seems to me important work to be done. What people make of any realisations about the flaws in our current ruling beliefs is their business. many have already seen some of what's wrong with what's on offer, and already sought alternatives. I shall present the following again, as you haven't responded so far. I'm not blaming anything, and even suggesting that within the following is precisely personal responsibility manifested. "If you all really think we don't know the importance of consuming to our society, and nobody has forced the point on us, tell us what you think the consequences would be if everyone no longer found mortgages, more clothes, cars, holidays, replacement kitchens, insurance, more food than for survival, drink, DIY, gardening stuff, the latest gadgets, if we no longer found them necessary for our happiness or satisfaction?" Plenty of time for teri's test, but first things first. Ivor |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty From: akenaton Date: 20 May 08 - 03:11 AM No mistake from me, I know many Conservatives, (none as congenial as Don), who scream for the army to be deployed in response to any percieved danger to "our way of life". I suspect Teribus with his army background may fall into this catagory of "Colonel Blimps". Do you both seriously expect us to believe that Capitalism spends billions on advertising for no return. Ivor is correct, we live in a capitalist society and we are encourage to think that the Capitalist ethos is sensible, when in reality it is the ultimate madness, for all the reasons Ivor has listed and many more besides. "Teribus's list" is of course one of his "cunningly constructed plans" in which we are damned if we do and damned if we don't. Ivor is again correct in stating that Teribus does no treat this compex subject seriously, but in a simplistic and dismissive manner. This is common to all of his ilk, to whom reason is anathema. Teribus cites "house repairs" as a large item in his personal budget. Now that is a bit of double speak if ever I heard one! I'm in the building trade and have seen many operations fall under the heading of house repairs. New Conservatories....kitchens...bathrooms...dormer windows...extensions...etc Somehow I don't see Major Teribus living in a slum with the water runnin' doon the walls ...Do you? I've seen them all trying to justify what they do to their houses as neccesary repairs when its really to increase the resale value, or keep up with the Jones's. Throwing out perfectly funtional items because they think them unfashionable, or may affect the sale price. "Lets make money and fuck the environment".....one question for Teribus, how many times have I heard that??......Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty From: Teribus Date: 20 May 08 - 10:24 AM To those reading this thread please note that both Akenaton and Ivor have both ducked the question, although in his defence I must state that Ivor has referred to it and stated that he will deal with it later. We'll see if "deal with" actaully means answer. Sorry Ake, don't know exactly how many times I have to state this on this Forum, but for one more time, I have never served in any Army, so, so much for my army back-ground referred to in your post. Counter to what you believe, it is normally those on the left-wing of politics that are readiest to "fight" for what they believe in, or want, or demand. "Teribus cites "house repairs" as a large item in his personal budget. Now that is a bit of double speak if ever I heard one! I'm in the building trade and have seen many operations fall under the heading of house repairs. New Conservatories....kitchens...bathrooms...dormer windows...extensions...etc" - Akenaton - the builder. Where do "drain repairs" come in that list Akenaton - frippery, luxury, or essential. Unfortunately my property is up the top end of the run, there is actually nothing wrong with the drains at my end, but because they are "common use" I have to pay my part of any repairs downstream, that is the law. Why the drains have been damaged downstream - other people putting up extensions, additional off road parking, etc. Doesn't matter a jot that they should have considered the consequences of that work before it was carried out, I still had to pay. How does that fit in with your; "I've seen them all trying to justify what they do to their houses as neccesary repairs when its really to increase the resale value, or keep up with the Jones's. Throwing out perfectly funtional items because they think them unfashionable, or may affect the sale price." I'd be interested in hearing from you on that but I don't think that you will bother as it would entail you admitting that: 1. Drain repairs are essentials 2. Drain repairs do not increase the resale value of the property 3. Drain repairs have got nothing to do with keeping up with the Joneses. 4. The list indicating how you spent your money over the past 12 months will not be made although I expect that if Akenaton did go through the exercise his list would look remarkably like mine as far as column population went, which would put some rather significant holes in some of his contentions detailed in this thread. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty From: akenaton Date: 20 May 08 - 01:27 PM A little free professional advice T. The volume of shit issuing from upstream can cause problems for the best of drainage systems. Just like Capitalism there comes a time when the whole infrastructure breaks down and the shit spreads all around. Now, if you produce anything like the volume at home that you do on Mudcat you are likely to be the most unpopular guy in your neighbourhood. Perhaps a new state of the art sewage treatment plant, paid for by special subscription by your neighbours may be the answer....Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty From: autolycus Date: 20 May 08 - 02:37 PM From: Teribus - PM Date: 20 May 08 - 10:24 AM To those reading this thread please note that both Akenaton and Ivor have both ducked the question, although in his defence I must state that Ivor has referred to it and stated that he will deal with it later. We'll see if "deal with" actaully means answer. Meantime, to those same readers, please note that Teri continues to duck the points I've repeated; duck or ignore or ??????, can't quite tell. Ivor |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty From: Teribus Date: 20 May 08 - 03:41 PM Hey Ake: "Just like Capitalism there comes a time when the whole infrastructure breaks down and the shit spreads all around." Just like something to which the time came between 1917 and 1991 when the infrastructure breaks down and the shit spreads all round - But it wasn't capitalism was it Akenaton? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty From: akenaton Date: 22 May 08 - 03:21 AM Interesting example of how insideously Capitalism works, on today's BBC news. Playboy, One of the worlds biggest producers of pornography, is marketing a range of stationary and clothing for schoolchildren. This stuff,bearing the Playboy logo is being presented in shops and catalogues beside well known childrens brands like Disney. This practice is known as "normalising" the brand, making it more acceptable. The marketing of women as sex objects is one Is now a multi billion pound industry. Perhaps it is just a coincidencebut apparently the new "free" Capitalist countries of Eastern Europe are top contributers to this industry...isn't progress wonderful. By the way Teribus, despite your sense of humour bypass, you are quite correct, any system, Capitalist or Communist which attempts to build an infrastructure to enslave the many for the benefit of the few will ultimately fail. At least Communism went in relative peace. Don't believe for one second that Capitalism will just slip off into the quiet night....Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty From: akenaton Date: 22 May 08 - 03:33 AM LINK HERE |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty From: GUEST,lox Date: 22 May 08 - 07:20 PM I've seen it in woolworths near where I live. My little girl was interested in the pink stuff with the bunny rabbit on. I did not acquiesce to her unwitting request that i allow her to be initiated gradually into a lifestyle and worldview that I sincerely hope she doe not fall for in later life. Brand loyalty is the key here. It's fun, its innocent and therefore so is the magazine and pornography. Of course you have to wait till you're older to do all that, but the mindset is instilled young to make it more appealing when you're older. Teribus, perhaps you should reread "Brave new world". Is it a horror story, or am I just a savage? And where would you fit in? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 22 May 08 - 07:28 PM ""Interesting example of how insideously Capitalism works, on today's BBC news. Playboy, One of the worlds biggest producers of pornography, is marketing a range of stationary and clothing for schoolchildren. This stuff,bearing the Playboy logo is being presented in shops and catalogues beside well known childrens brands like Disney."" Interesting example of stretching the facts beyond recognition, in order to produce a pseudo proof of a personal opinion. One corporation, owned by a Loony Tunes eccentric with the sexual instincts of a precocious twelve year old schoolboy, is NOT Capitalism. If there is a descriptive "ism" for this, I would suggest that it is Hedonism, which is not at all the same thing. I too deplore the placing of these goods alongside children's products, and agree that they SHOULD be removed, but their presence is not due to Capitalism. It is purely the result of one company's desire to gain some mainstream credibility, and will only succeed if people are dumb enough to fall for it. In my whole life, nobody has ever "sold" me anything by advertising. I decide what I want in general terms, then do the necessary research to decide on a specific product. I then go to a retailer and "buy" it. Anyone CAN do it. It's called willpower. Don T |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty From: Teribus Date: 23 May 08 - 01:09 AM "In my whole life, nobody has ever "sold" me anything by advertising. I decide what I want in general terms, then do the necessary research to decide on a specific product. I then go to a retailer and "buy" it. Anyone CAN do it. It's called willpower. Don T" Well put Don, the same goes for me. That is exactly the route I follow for every purchase I make. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty From: autolycus Date: 23 May 08 - 02:18 AM Meanwhile you both continue not to respond to so many points. There's nothing like picking asnd choosing what to reply to , and to ignoring to plenty. Ivor |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty From: Rasener Date: 23 May 08 - 02:40 AM Well I don't know about the local elections, the By-election result was stunning. Tory candidate Edward Timpson won 7,860 more votes than his Labour rival, overturning a 7,000 Labour majority at the general election - a 17.6% swing. A pretty good turnout as well. Now then Gordon Brown, how low can you go....... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty From: sapper82 Date: 23 May 08 - 03:51 AM Excellent result!! Interesting though, Labour is against the hereditory principal in the House of Lords, but are quite happy for seats to be passed from parent to child! What a pity for them the electors saw sense! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 23 May 08 - 05:13 AM "If you all really think we don't know the importance of consuming to our society, and nobody has forced the point on us, tell us what you think the consequences would be if everyone no longer found mortgages, more clothes, cars, holidays, replacement kitchens, insurance, more food than for survival, drink, DIY, gardening stuff, the latest gadgets, if we no longer found them necessary for our happiness or satisfaction?" If everyone did as you suggest, then shareholders of companies would have to accept a lower return on their investments, as they would not be able to switch their cash to more lucrative concerns. Only if the reduction in consumption were partial, would the collapse that you hint at take place, as investors withdrew from the less lucrative investments. Any economic system in the FREE world is , of necessity, a balancing act:- Prices follow demand. Wages follow prices. Demand follows wages. I see no reason why that would change when there was a downward trend. If your putative consumers decided not to consume, they would presumably not need the wherewithal for that consumption, so the fall in wages caused by same would to some extent cushion the fall in profits, and one might expect a new, lower, balance point to be reached, which would in real terms approximate proportionately to the current status quo. We are talking here about a medium of exchange....My Labour, for company's money....My wages, for company's goods...... Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty From: GUEST,lox Date: 23 May 08 - 09:23 AM Have you ever heard of the McLibel trial? It was proved during this case, to the satisfaction of the courts, that mcdonalds deliberately and maliciously targeted young children for two reasons. Firstly because they would pester their parents. Pester power in this context is recognized in the courts as a means by which to put pressur on parents to consume in ways they otherwise might not choose to. Secondly and more importantly, if children can be roped into the whole McDonalds food substitute scam (as I see it) then they will develop long term comfort associations with McDonalds food in their adulthood. These points have been successfully been upheld by the british courts iin a legal battle between two self representing unemployed londoners on the dole versus the might of McDonalds international, who spent millions on the best legal team and brought in expert witness after expert witness to attempt to make a mockery of the charges that had been levelled against them. So, to simplify, in conclusion, It has been proved in court, in this instance, that advertising uses subtle psychological techniiques to pressure people into buying things they otherwise wouldn't necesserily want. But it is obvious that there is more to it than that, and no amount of "hooray for freedom and hooray for choice" parties will change it. Kids wear the clothes that the billboards tell them to wear, they use the phones that the billboards tell them to use and they follow the lifestyles that the magazines invvent about celebrities. It's all about the kids annd being cool. And of course the baby boomers are suckers for wanting to remain kids at heart so they try and be like the kids and to outcool them. The illusion of choicce is never more easiily diispelled than by simply taking note of the homogeny of style attitude and liffestyle iin popular culture. And if everr you feel you want to fit in, you need only wear whatt the celebs are wearing and buy the chheap versions of their clothhes that are sold on the billboards. This is of course the reason why folk is a dying artform. We're a fringe bunch because we listen to it and do it. But kids are having the imagination squeezed out of them by the relentless pressure to listen to thhe established musical styles, shop at top shop, drink coffee at starbucks etc etc etc ... Go to prague or warsw and see the same stuff there that we see here. Maybe it's easy for a couple of arrogant old timers to ignore it because they are just about escaping it, but the reality of thhe world todday is that of homogeny and conformity, led by corporate propaganda (advertising) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty From: Teribus Date: 23 May 08 - 11:11 AM Guest Lox, ever heard of that old saying: "A fool and his money are soon parted" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty From: GUEST,Jim Martin Date: 23 May 08 - 12:15 PM The 'McLibel case was bad enough but isn't the 'Playboy' one even worse? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 23 May 08 - 03:09 PM "Maybe it's easy for a couple of arrogant old timers to ignore it because they are just about escaping it, but the reality of thhe world todday is that of homogeny and conformity, led by corporate propaganda (advertising)" Thank you Lox for your interesting if facile dissertation on the character of two people you know nothing about....Most edifying. The reality of the world today is that any individual CAN choose to conform, or NOT. Kids are indeed vulnerable to subtle persuasion. I used it very successfully to steer them away from a lifetime of mindless conformity, and in the process produced two very bright, successful, and individually worthwhile human beings. My daughter at 39 is an E grade nurse specialising in intensive therapy, and the mother of three fine children who are similarly individualistic. My son is head of art at one of the biggest secondary schools in the area, leading the efforts of five subordinates. He too has children, as yet too young to be affected by ads. My kids DID suffer some peer disdain because they did not wear the right designer labels. Both of them started breakaway groups which eventually included many who had been against them initially. Both developed, without instruction from me, their own personal tastes in clothes, food, music, and just about everything else. IT CAN BE DONE, and IMHO IT SHOULD BE DONE. The Playboy affair, by its very nature, is indeed a quantum leap worse than anything McD could do in the way of harm. Customer pressure should easily sort that one out. BTW I am NOT arrogant, but I will confess that I am proud of my kids individuality. HELL, they no longer take any notice even of me! And that's how it should be. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty From: GUEST,lox Date: 23 May 08 - 05:24 PM As you should be. Individuality is to be nurtured in children and that is what I also do with mine. The advertising behemoth sells overpriced unnecessary products using a social ideal. You too can be a fun sexy coke drinking maccy-d eating dynamic super - indeed uber guy/gal. To be this unique individual, you just need to wear these clothes, these sunglasses and ... have this attitude ... ... ah ... the attitude ... that's the dangerous part ... With the attitude comes a general shallow persona, constructed of a shallow philosophical and political and "spiritual" pic'n'mix, which like mcdonalds leaves one feeling entirely undernourished. "Kids are indeed vulnerable to subtle persuasion. I used it very successfully to steer them away from a lifetime of mindless conformity, and in the process produced two very bright, successful, and individually worthwhile human beings." So we agree. Our kids deserve better and they are under pressure and we must open our eyes to the realities they face and help them to deal with them. Sadly for many kids, their parents are suckers for the whole rebranding thing and they will find it cute dressing their kids in "trendy" playboy gear. and will let their kids push them into buying the stuff when their cooler - or should I say more neglected friends start wearing it to school. Who wears the clothes? P Diddy? Snoop Dogg? Kate Moss? Amy winehouse? what's the message? do drugs, cheat on your partner, avoid relationships, become self sufficient emotionally and financially, when it all goes wrong take a pill. I've known many people for whom it's too much because the programming and the needs of the soul just aren't compatible. Sex is used in many ways in advertising, and peoples fears and insecurities about their sexuality and desirability are targeted mercilessly. Mainly, ppeople are duped into believing that to be accepted socially they have to be sexually desirable. Of course the only way to prove this is to have lots of partners and to appear uncaring and unconcerned. But in the meantime, the best way to increase our desirability is to wear the clothes etc that will make us desirable and sexy. This exploitation of our deepest insecurities (in an admittedly facile nutshell, for the sake of brevity) has been gradually creeping down the ages from older teens to younger teens and now to preteens. What playboy are doing is absolutely a million times worse than anything mcdonalds have ever done. However, I believe they will get away with it and it will be commonplace in a couple of years to see little girls wearing tee shirts with the bunny logo on them. Advertising is insidious and it defines fatter people as unattractive and renders them outcasts. So young girls become body dysmorphic and abuse themselves through starvation. I will not be so crass as to simplify anorexia and bulimia as being mere symptoms of this problem, but I certainly believe that there are many girls out there who would eat better if it wasn't for the pressure they are under to look thinner. Ironically, I know a guy who advertises for mcdonalds, and they have undergone a massive overhaul. His office has been repeatedly surprised when ad ideas they have come up with, extolling the virtues of mcdonalds for sourcing their ingredients sustainably, have been rejected. He informs me that mcdonalds are now sourcing their ingredients sustainably, but they are not shouting about it because they fear losing their main customer base, who like to boast "I can't afford to be ecological". Their instructions are to focus on thhe affordability of the food. Crazy! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty From: akenaton Date: 23 May 08 - 05:24 PM Don, I have no doubt you have been an excellent father and grandfather,instilling individuality in your family, just as I have tried to do. We have both the strength, intellectually, financially and socially to see through the advertising con, but we should remember that there are millions without that strength through no fault of their own. It is often a case of where they live, their educational chances or ability, social conditions etc. The post by Lox was obviously heartfelt, the emotion in his/her writing was palpable...an excellent post. I am sure no disrespect was intended to you and I took his light rebuke to you as being "tongue in cheek". Regardless of how well you have performed as a parent, Capitalism and its M. O. are still a menace to humanity....Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty From: Rasener Date: 24 May 08 - 03:04 AM The problem we have is that the labour party has already led us in to poverty and still have a couple of years to make it even worse. Brown has to take the majority of the blame. Yet there is nobody good enough to take over from him, if he resigned, even though IMHO he is aweful. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty From: autolycus Date: 24 May 08 - 04:55 AM From: The Villan - PM Date: 24 May 08 - 03:04 AM The problem we have is that the labour party has already led us in to poverty Evidence please. Ivor |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty From: Rasener Date: 24 May 08 - 05:20 AM Well I, like a lot of other people are struggling to survive with all the infaltionary costs etc. Maybe you are on enough dosh to not let it bother you. In which case you might not notice. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty From: Big Al Whittle Date: 24 May 08 - 05:32 AM well for what its worth I think things have been better under labour. More people have been working. And when that happens they collect more tax, and people have less interest in getting into the kind of mischief that causes social problems and makes life a misery for the rest of us. I'm not in the Labour fan club. they could have done much better. But they do seem preferable the alternative. I mean seriously do you want the tories back. do you want them cosying up to Paisley's lot causing all sorts of shit on the streets of Northern Ireland? All those idiot right wing intiatives that cost the taxpayers thousands - like the national curriculum (cos all teachers are left wing errorists) fund holding gp's ( working towards the situation they masterminded with dentists and half the people can't get on an NHS practitioners list). Huge rates of unemployment as 'unecomomic' businesses get weeded out with the help of the uncaring banks and financial institutions. For Chrissake if history teaches us anthing - business is GOOD - any kind of business is better business than unemployment. Thatcher went on making the same mistake for about 14 years that Wilson did with SET. Its all one way traffic Les, screwing the very poorest and those with least economic clout in our society. It will happen again if you vote for them, and its no good whining if they your kid gets falls victim to drugs, gambling, or cheap booze - any of the things that are allowed to attack our children unregulated - because we don't believe in a nanny state. You voted for it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty From: Rasener Date: 24 May 08 - 05:36 AM >>You voted for it<< For what Al I voted for Tony Blair twice. I didn't vote for Brown, who I have never liked. I voted for Harold Wilson and Margaret Thatcher. Basically, I vote for the person I feel most fit to be in charge of the Government at the time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty From: Jim Lad Date: 24 May 08 - 05:37 AM And I remember the Miners' strike in the early seventies. Being an apprentice, I wasn't allowed to strike so no strike pay and being in the Union, the NCB wasn't allowed to pay me. I remember the power cuts and the bread shortages (Promised myself I'd learn to bake my own one day & did) Harold Wilson was so tight with the Unions before he got elected that he couldn't control them once he got in. I also remember my last trip home and seeing the results of the Common Market on almost every shelf in the shops. Thatcher was bad, I know but I seriously doubt that any future party will ever be as bad again. You've come a long way. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty From: Big Al Whittle Date: 24 May 08 - 06:05 AM Well when I said you voted for it. what I meant was that after the Toxteth riots and the Handsworth riots, then the hunger strike business - even if she did get lucky in the Falklands - she obviously didn't give a bugger about the social consequences of her policies. it was great that she stopped inflation, but by God was there a casualty list! In truth we're still picking the lead out of our society from those years. and some areas of society, we'll simply never get back. Degenerate gambling dens on every street corner, hard drugs freely available - it all came in the wake of dismantling the mining industry so carelessly. have you ever checked out the pages of gamblers anonymous - in particular the slot machine addicts. Its a disease which is rampant in our society, and no one of any political party seems to give a bugger. basically it happened when the manufacturing base of the country was whipped out from under the population, leaving a lot of idle hands and diretionless young folk. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty From: Teribus Date: 24 May 08 - 06:05 AM Counter to what WLD believes to be the case: Unemployment in UK according to the LSE - Between 1979 and 1983 it increased; between 1983 and 1986 it was on some sort of plateau and between 1986 and 1990 it decreased rapidly. Over the same period in the UK Employment figure trends were as follows - Between 1979 and 1983 the number of people in employment fell, but between 1983 and 1989 the numbers of people in employment grew rapidly. Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister throughout. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty From: Big Al Whittle Date: 24 May 08 - 07:18 AM well all I can say is, it wasn't growing rapidly in Norh Notts till we got shut of the buggers. i'm well aware she took damn good care of the thirty odd per cent of the population who kept electing her. that was another delightful aspect of those swine. they visited their depredations on parts of the country that weren't voing for them. like Scotland with the poll tax. If you can't understand how she did so much to disunite this country - all I can say is, you must have sat very still in the same comfortable place, and covered your ears! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty From: Big Al Whittle Date: 24 May 08 - 07:44 AM oh go and play wiv yer ballads..... |
