Don't get me wrong , I think there's a place for both, com-gov,
it's just the long term vision thing , or lack thereof.
We have become Behemoth. Must be careful how we tread.
Printable View
Don't get me wrong , I think there's a place for both, com-gov,
it's just the long term vision thing , or lack thereof.
We have become Behemoth. Must be careful how we tread.
......"Switzerland would be a congenial place in which to live, as I like mountains and cheese."
Your' killing me
- :tongue:
To all I apologize,
by the looks of this website ,I've been reading for just the past 10 pages,
and it's downed on me, it seems you all are talking about everything.
I admit I don't read this forum often. I was re -reading my posts and i wish I could rewrite them. It's rude of me to think of this place as a magazine rather than a bar /club. Next time , I think I'll drink before and read ahead .
You could start by rewriting this one. Are your sure you haven't been drinking already?Quote:
Originally Posted by nitron
You're the one adding personal insults to your postings. We know you despise the great unwashed but wind your neck in & stop behaving like a troll or face a possible ban! And please; go and see your GP to get some treatment/medication for that huge superiority complex you have! Big headed twat.Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
What's happening in Poland now, it's 14 years since you lot stupidly voted for a dose of Thatcherism by joining the EU? I went in 2007 but since then I know train fares have quadrupled for tourists and I remembered paying 8 ZL for a coffee on Poznan station, OUCH!Quote:
Originally Posted by Ts RedVeX
Sounds like you suffered from oppression Vex?
Governments must not intervene in economy, period. When they do, you get countries or vicinities, areas of market ran by mafias. E.g. one that gets legal privilege to use parts of publicly funded roads, or one that gets legal privilege and benefits to fight global warming; etc. Mafia is basically a company & a bunch of politicians who push laws to support the company's business. Trade unions are also mafias as they want their businesses to be supported and ultimately live of public money. Mafias are legal here, unfortunately. Poland is also ran pretty much either by those thieves, or by a bunch of idiots.
I haven't suffered from much oppression myself. Like I said, I was born in times that allowed me to grow up in a relatively normal environment. What I see happening around me now is alarming though. At the moment, whole Europe is dying under occupation of the European Union. Poland, probably relatively not much so, if you compare it to France or the UK. I thought brexit would change that for the UK but it seems that Farage was right to have said that the whole thing would be "kicked into the high grass".
Coming back to Thacher's politics, I think it is worth noting that she would oppose projects like Exchange Rate Mechanism, and to "proposals from the European Community (EC), forerunner of the European Union, for a federal structure and increased centralisation of decision making". She was basically against the European Union! Poland's joining the EU was not a dose of Thatcherism. It was totally the opposite!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2koyUc-4MQ0
Don't forget about our legalised Maffia Vex; It's called the Establishment! Only recently £20bn as gone missing from the treasury! Course; the BBC & SKY news have been trying to keep a lid on it but we have social media now! If £20bn had gone missing in Russia or Sicily, you wouldn't ask questions about it either!
These bastards make the Russians look like Mother Teresa! That's why they(UK) are always having a "pop" at them.
[QUOTE=Ts RedVeX;1800584]
Governments must not intervene in economy, period.
--Who, then, decides what the currency of the state shall be? Are you saying that there should be no state regulation of currency, of banks indeed, of money in all its forms?
--Why, in the 'golden age' of American capitalism, an age that resounds with the names of Rockefeller and Mellon, Carnegie and Vanderbilt and JP Morgan did the US Goverment in 1890, in Congress pass An act to protect trade and commerce against unlawful restraints and monopolies [the 'Sherman Act']?
--because unrestrained, unregulated capitalism, far from expanding free markets, led to the creation of monopolies and cartels that stranglied them. Without state regulation, could Rockefeller have owned in one corporation the whole of the USA's oil and gas resources? Yes, had he bought out the others. And was it a good thing for capitalism and free markets that the Bell Telephone Co was broken up, not once but twice between 1877 and 1982? Or should the market have been free to give one corporation control of all telecommunications in the USA? Because without anti-trust law, there is no free market.
Your attachment to free markets seems to sit somewhere between unrequited love and delusion. They may even be the same thing.
Coming back to Thacher's politics, I think it is worth noting that she would oppose projects like Exchange Rate Mechanism, and to "proposals from the European Community (EC), forerunner of the European Union, for a federal structure and increased centralisation of decision making". She was basically against the European Union! Poland's joining the EU was not a dose of Thatcherism. It was totally the opposite!
--Mrs Thatcher as a Minister in the government of Edward Heath campaigned for the UK to join the EEC in 1970 and supported the negotiations that led to the UK becoming a full member in 1973; and it was Mrs Thatcher who took the UK into the European Exchange Mechanism in 1990 -against her instincts she said after the fact-from which it crashed out in 1992, why? Because of the underling weakness of the UK economy 13 years after she became Prime Minister. It was the same Margaret Thatcher who took the UK into the Single Market in 1986, as significant a move in the integration of Europe as you can think of, but something which, as a believer in free markets she did not oppose for that reason so we can agree with this assessment, that
Thatcher was never an enthusiast of a political union, let alone a federation, on the European level; rather, her priorities for the European Community mirrored her priorities at home – economic growth and tight budgetary discipline.
http://ukandeu.ac.uk/margaret-thatch...n-integration/
The problem is that Thatcher, along with every other British Prime Minister from the moment the European Iron and Steel Community was formed in 1951, knew where it was going because Jean Monnet and Robert Schuman were well known for their aspiration to unite a once divided Europe through economic and political federation. Because the UK decided not to be part of the 'European Project' some in Europe turned against the UK -notably Charles de Gaulle- while the British looked on in envy at the progress of the 'Community' and thus created an alternative in 1960, the European Free Trade Area, a precursor to the UK joining the EEC in 1973.
Thus it can be said that the UK always wanted to be part of the economic union, but did not want the political change that brought with it. The nostalgic movement based on the idea Britain is Great when the Great is in Britain sits in denial at the reality of economic decline outside the EU as the Empire faded away, just as the claim Britain can be Great outside the EU is yet to be proven.
I guess the fact is the British have never really thought of themselves as European, and that may be where Thatcher's limits with the EU lay, in an ever-widening ditch into which the UK has now tumbled not knowing where or how hard it will fall.
There is nothing wrong with Russia. It is much more liberal a country nowadays. It may also be worth mentioning that it was one of the first countries to break out of the Soviet Union.
- Money can be anything that can be reused as money later on. Since it is capitalists that actually produces something, e.g. a shoemaker, who need money as tools to produce their shoes (because he needs to buy leather, shoelaces, threads, etc and other capitalists who produce those may already have shoes and be unwilling to trade for shoes), it is up to those capitalists to decide what money they are going to use. Giving government the monopoly to decide and for make money leads to bad things, as Alexis de Tocqueville would say "There is no atrocity a liberal and gentle government would refrain from committing when it runs out of money".
- because communists want to control everything and they want to have monopoly for everything. There is only place for one monopoly, usually.
- Mafias would not be possible in a normal country where markets are free from government intervention. If a company does a good job rendering its services then I cannot see why it shouldn't be the main provider of those services. It then does not need any laws who protect it from competition, which is not the case when it decides to lower it's services' quality.
- There are only two types of communists 1) Smart, lying bastards, who know they are lying; 2) Complete idiots, who actually believe in those lies. I can only assume that you belong to the latter.
- I never said Thatcher was either good or bad. She was a politician after all, and she found herself living in an abnormal country. She did bring the UK out of a crisis caused by the communists.
- That is why government should not intervene in economy.
- That is why government should not intervene in economy.
- That is why government should not intervene in economy...