Rightfield

[eFestivals]

Lack of economic reality seems to pretty evenly spread about this thread tbh.

Laughable!

This website is run to an economic reality, but not a capitalist one.

[Witty username here]

yeah, but for those folk what they gain via support of their pension funds via a bailout is taken back from them by paying back the money used for the bailout.

It would only those people who have more than the average amount accumulated in some manner who would lose out - and given that they've accumulated that surplus via a system which is rigged in their favour (better known as 'theft') then I'm not going to lose sleep for them.

The economy has been stolen from us by a rigged system. It's time to steal it back.

[eFestivals]

Teddington is anti-government debt but pro-bailout? And anyone is taking him seriously?

Yep, he loves socialism for the rich, free-markets for the poor.

Add in his statement about climate change being a con, and he's perfect UKIP fodder. In fact.....

He is Nigel Farange and I claim my five pounds.

[Witty username here]

and a only-capitalist system would impact even more.

How do I know? Because several times capitalists have come to buy, but left sharply again when they've discovered it's not the capitalists dream they were imagining.

Edited May 13, 2013 by Witty username here

[Teddington]

You're propounding a theory about as potty as Teddington. A pension isn't theft, any more than a salary is.

[eFestivals]

You're propounding a theory about as potty as Teddington. A pension isn't theft, any more than a salary is.

a pension isn't theft.

Acquiring a surplus more than the average is tho. It's been earned by others and stolen from those others.

That's what the "free market" is all about. The freedom to steal the work of others.

Next up, let's talk about "libertarianism" - where you're at liberty to do whatever you like to others but those others are not at liberty to not be fucked over by the libertarians.

Edited May 13, 2013 by eFestivals

[Witty username here]

Care to explain

a. What theory I am promoting

b. Why you think it's potty

[Teddington]

Teddington is anti-government debt but pro-bailout? And anyone is taking him seriously?

[eFestivals]

Psst! You're one of those capitalists. Sorry.

That would require me to have capital.

That's where your argument falls down.

[Teddington]

You're claiming that a 'pure' free market system is a means of bypassing debt - which is pretty much potty by any economic measure.

[Teddington]

That would require me to have capital.

That's where your argument falls down.

[wilko8]

That would require me to have capital.

That's where your argument falls down.

[eFestivals]

Personally I would have split up the banks into investment and retail arms, regulated the retail arms and let the investment arms fail.

It's an entirely consistent policy.

only after the event it is.

You're choosing to ignore the fact that it was free market principles that had the banks unregulated to piss all of that money up the wall in the first place - for you to then say they should be "regulated".

So even you know that the free market idea you're promoting is a crock of shit.

[Teddington]

only after the event it is.

You're choosing to ignore the fact that it was free market principles that had the banks unregulated to piss all of that money up the wall in the first place - for you to then say they should be "regulated".

So even you know that the free market idea you're promoting is a crock of shit.

[William of Walworth]

.

I'm no cox fan but I can imagine that was pretty amusing.

I think that the two protagonists in this dispute are just muddled in semantics.

We as a rule try and live our lives as reasonably as possible with decent ethics and standards that in principle lean slightly to the left, however we have to face the fact that we can't really avoid being capitalist to a point, that's what our society is like it or not .

Eavis is ultimately a farmer, a business man. He knows what side his bread is buttered but he knows how to keep himself comfortable too

[eFestivals]

You do have capital. You.

that counts for fuck all within the free-market ideas you love.

Or have you now decided that the people resource is good to strike to exploit back everything that the exploiters have had from them?

Oh dear. PMSL.

What do Starbucks pay you for their banner ads? Magic beans?

Until you're able to differentiate between 'cash flow' and 'capital' you have no place in this discussion.

[eFestivals]

A pure free market system would require very little government. The funding of which could be covered by taxation, therefore avoiding debt. In fact ensuring any debt is sub optimal to the extent that it is mutually exclusive.

The level of funding would depend upon what the taxpayer considers optimal for efficient government.

Hardly potty.

Yep, UKIP aren't potty. PMSL

[William of Walworth]

The ultimate logic of being a free marketeer is to become an anarcho-capitalist, ie what they'd prefer to call a libertarian capitalist.

[Witty username here]

a pension isn't theft.

Acquiring a surplus more than the average is tho. It's been earned by others and stolen from those others.

[eFestivals]

The other is my personal view on how the banks should have been regulated.

That personal view is an argument against the free market idea you're promoting.

Oh dear. You seem to have muddled yourself up in your own lack of consistency, thought, and knowledge.

[Teddington]

that counts for fuck all within the free-market ideas you love.

Or have you now decided that the people resource is good to strike to exploit back everything that the exploiters have had from them?

Oh dear. PMSL.

Until you're able to differentiate between 'cash flow' and 'capital' you have no place in this discussion.

[Witty username here]

That would require me to have capital.

That's where your argument falls down.

[formed a band]

You've got a point, but as businessmen go, Michael Eavis does far more for more than a lot of business people do. Glastonbury has given far more fun enjoyment and stimulation (of all kinds!) to people than Michael Eavis has taken out of the Festival. Profits mostly go towards worthy causes or towards reinvesting in the festival (admittedly including his own property to a fair extent! but it is a now much improved festival site as well as a farm!).Glastonbury's not a personally profiteering venture for him and was never intended to be.

[Teddington]

That personal view is an argument against the free market idea you're promoting.

Oh dear. You seem to have muddled yourself up in your own lack of consistency, thought, and knowledge.

[sjseabass]

Personally I would have split up the banks into investment and retail arms, regulated the retail arms and let the investment arms fail.

It's an entirely consistent policy.