Greece crisis: Europe on edge over snap election

Triggaaar · Dec 30, 2014

Mustafa said:
Africa has no money, despite its incredible resources. Poor people in Africa are usually worse off than people in richer countries for obvious reasons, I shouldn't need to explain this

You don't need to explain it, that's what I was saying.

but remember you have more in common with working people all over the world, than you do with the wealthy ruling classes, by some margin.

I'm not so sure about that.

Suggesting that our political, social or economic systems should be inspired by biological evolution is ridiculous

It would be ridiculous, but I don't think anyone's suggested
it. I was simply pointing out that humans are not all altruistic.

considering how science and technology has so significantly surpassed it in the last few thousand years. Surely we need to focus on those things, science and technology, rather than an idea that "survival of the fittest" is somehow beneficial to people.

As above, 'survival of the fittest' is an explanation of why humans have evolved into the creatures they are. That includes the fact that humans have been successful by working together, so humans are naturally good at working together. It wasn't a suggestion on how we should operate.

"ruthlessly compete with one another and profiteer over one another - with the end goal being hedonistic endeavours or consumer items."
... perfectly describes the cultures within China and Russia

Yes it does, now. But it couldn't have described them 30 years ago when they had no opportunity to make a profit, which proves my point, that they were brought up in a society where they didn't need to compete, but as soon as the option became available, they took it.

This is why capitalism was a success, but also why it has failed.

It hasn't failed. There has always been inequality around the world, it's not a new phenomenon.

Instilling greed and desire into a culture leads to productivity until the power corrupts, like it has in all countries now without exception.

Greed is a natural human trait, not something created by capitalism. I asked you for examples of societies to demonstrate how people aren't naturally greedy - what have you got?

Harry H · Dec 30, 2014

A storm in a teacup.
Which will be smashed along with the plates after dinner.

beorhthelm · Dec 30, 2014

Mustafa said:
Africa is extremely poor, despite its incredible resources. Poor people in Africa are usually worse off than people in richer countries for obvious reasons, I shouldn't need to explain this - but remember you have more in common with working people all over the world, than you do with the wealthy ruling classes, by some margin.

so Africa is poor... but you say that we dont *need* money. so why havent the cash poor, resource rich africans found a solution. the reasons for impoverishment in africa clearly arent that obvious otherwise they'd have solved the situation themselves. why dont you (and Brand, and anyone else inclined) toddle off to somewhere in africa to establish your utopia. we could have an exchange programme, there's plenty there wanting to come and embrace capitialism.

Hastings gull · Dec 30, 2014

Mustafa said:
Old enough to have enjoyed the fruits of a capitalist economy, but young enough to still care that they are poisonous.

And hypocritical enough to keep enjoying them. ( I do, however, admire your honesty.)

pastafarian · Dec 31, 2014

Mustafa said:
Poor people in Africa are usually worse off than people in richer countries for obvious reasons, I shouldn't need to explain this -

what because people in richer countries tend to be richer in comparison to poor people in African Countries........blow me down.......you definitely dont need to explain that huge deduction Sherlock!

Mustafa said:
Africa is extremely poor, despite its incredible resources.

Yes parts of it are poor,lets ignore the parts that are torn with religious,political and geographical strife for one moment.Poverty and strife come linked to any region with warfare.

I know you boast about being a young bloke but what are your experiences of Africa?I first started going there 25 years ago,mostly East Africa.It was quite a shock to the system,the poverty,the booming trade in casket makers,bodies lying in the street unattended (aids crisis),

Travelling there today is a complete reversal in some countries,there is a growing middle class,the foreign/social aid economy has created its own boom/wealth.....think new office buildings,new computers,new roads,new employees.

Foreign investment has built new roads,wells,dams and hotels,springing up after that are bars,restaurants,casinos,car showrooms,garages etc etc etc etc and so on and so on.

Kampala for example is a former shade on itself 25 years ago.Yes there is still poverty,there is a long way to go.But all over Africa people are being brought out of poverty by capitalism.Its an ongoing slow process not without its pitfalls and faults.

In China 100`s of millions have been brought out of poverty by capitalism and consumerism in the last few years,not a few million but 100`s of millions.

And you want to tell them that the system that has brought them out of poverty should be disbanded because you and a few others dont like it........go on i dare you! Whilst your at it dont forget to tell them you have no proven working model to replace it.........but at least in the meantime until you come up with a working alternative we will all be poor together!

Tell me......when will people like you and Russell Brand be touring communities in Africa and China (that have been brought out of poverty through capitalism) to start spreading the Revolution message.........thats a trewsnews that will never happen but i would love to see

Machiavelli · Dec 31, 2014

Triggaaar said:
So you're saying that all humans are altruistic, and evolution favours those who are selfless. That's an unusual view.

I was replying to Mustafa's question why every person on the planet isn't provided with clean water, nutritious food, shelter, electricity and education - why do you think they're not?

Go back to the post you're responding to, and please explain how you've put those words into my mouth.

Hastings gull · Dec 31, 2014

Mustafa said:
Progress to an economic system where any work that needs to be done, can be done - we shouldn't need to ask "where is the money going to come from" - all we need to do any job, whether it is ending poverty or colonising Mars, is people and resources - we have more than enough of both to achieve anything.

I really wonder at times about you. In theory, you are quite right -we probably do have the resources to solve the world's problems. All we need is to tell people to do this and that -no need to ask about money to pay them to feed their families or the materials - that will just happen. You just don't need to think about it -it is all OK, and it will happen. So lets progress to this system, and what ever you do, just don't ask about who will pay. Because we are going to end poverty by providing work, but don't worry about who builds the factory etc to provide that employment, because you don't need to ask about that.

Triggaaar · Dec 31, 2014

Machiavelli said:
Go back to the post you're responding to, and please explain how you've put those words into my mouth.

I said: "humans are not all altruistic, they never have been. Evolution has favoured the fittest, not the most selfless" and you replied saying you disagreed.

Machiavelli · Dec 31, 2014

Triggaaar said:
I said: "humans are not all altruistic, they never have been. Evolution has favoured the fittest, not the most selfless" and you replied saying you disagreed.

This is what I said: "Both yours and Mustafa's. Because humans have agency, to transport them out of any nature that you or Mustafa choose to impute to them.
Your notion of a growing economy rising all boats is naive too."

Because I disagree with the essentialism that you and Mustafa espouse does not mean that I think humans are altruistic. It means that humans do not have an essence or nature.
And I still think you're naive on a growing economy rising all boats.

Triggaaar · Dec 31, 2014

Machiavelli said:
And I still think you're naive on a growing economy rising all boats.

Feel free to say what you think in English.

Westdene Seagull · Dec 31, 2014

Triggaaar said:
Allowed, not forced. Greece decided what was best for them, and they decided that was joining the Euro.
Encouraged - again, it's up to Greece where they spend their money.

The general population of Greece seem to think it's ok to get paid by the government for doing **** all, and then retire at 50. As long as they have that attitude, their country is doomed, and there's no point wasting money to bail them out time and time again. Harsh, but fair in my opinion.

Indeed they weren't forced to join the Eurozone but the alternative for them was the devaluation of their currency and certain recession.

Germany and the EU offering staggering low interest loans was akin to me offering an alcoholic a bottle of vodka. You seem to have skimmed over the over riding by the EU of democratic process.

Germany offered loans despite knowing Greece could never actually pay them back so they can hardly bitch when Greece fails to pay them back. The EU broke it's own rules letting Greece into the Euro - what a fine up standing organisation it is.

I agree with you that the Greek economy and tax colection was a basket case but that shows Germany and the EU up even more that they were willing to accept the risk to the Euro.

Hastings gull · Dec 31, 2014

Machiavelli said:
This is what I said: "Both yours and Mustafa's. Because humans have agency, to transport them out of any nature that you or Mustafa choose to impute to them.
Your notion of a growing economy rising all boats is naive too."

Because I disagree with the essentialism that you and Mustafa espouse does not mean that I think humans are altruistic. It means that humans do not have an essence or nature.
And I still think you're naive on a growing economy rising all boats.

Perhaps it is a question of me showing my ignorance, but nonetheless, could you say what this all means in plain English.

Triggaaar · Dec 31, 2014

Westdene Seagull said:
Indeed they weren't forced to join the Eurozone but the alternative for them was the devaluation of their currency and certain recession.

Their currency was theirs to control, so they can't blame anyone else. Recession because they don't do any ****ing work!

Germany and the EU offering staggering low interest loans was akin to me offering an alcoholic a bottle of vodka.

So you're comparing the government of Greece with an alcoholic - now we're on the same page!

Germany offered loans despite knowing Greece could never actually pay them back so they can hardly bitch when Greece fails to pay them back.

I think that's a fair point. Don't bitch about it, you had it coming (aimed at Germany). But that doesn't mean Germany should be helping Greece, it just means they shouldn't bitch about bad debts.

The EU broke it's own rules letting Greece into the Euro - what a fine up standing organisation it is.

Agreed.

I agree with you that the Greek economy and tax colection was a basket case but that shows Germany and the EU up even more that they were willing to accept the risk to the Euro.

I don't disagree there either. I just think populations need to be responsible for the governments they elect (inc us). No one likes austerity, but sometimes it's the best option. And the Greeks should pay for the fact that they never want to pay.

beorhthelm · Dec 31, 2014

Machiavelli said:
And I still think you're naive on a growing economy rising all boats.

despite all the evidence to the contrary? you think today's first world poor are in any way similar to the poor of yesturyear or the developing world?

Machiavelli · Dec 31, 2014

Hastings gull said:
Perhaps it is a question of me showing my ignorance, but nonetheless, could you say what this all means in plain English.

Of course. Both Trigaaar and Mustafa have been saying that humans have a particular 'nature' or 'essence'. Trigaaar says that we're competitive; Mustafa says that we're altruistic. I'm saying that we're neither, because we don't have a nature or essence. This is because we possess agency, and can adapt to situations such that we become other than -- or different from -- what we have been.

The second comment has been understood by beorhthelm (see post 85), and relates to a metaphor that if the economy grows, that growth will be shared throughout the population. This is something that Trigaaar regularly states on this board.
My claim, by contrast, is that the wealth of a growing economy was shared in the post-war period, from 1945 to about 1979, but has not been subsequently. There is abundant evidence to support this claim, for instance, from the World Bank's leading figure on poverty and inequality, Branko Milanovic, and more recently, from Thomas Piketty (see: http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/en/capital21c2 ) whose book Capital in the Twenty-First Century published this year, already translated into 37 languages and the FT's book of the year is well worth reading.

Guerrero · Dec 31, 2014

Virtually all Human Beings,wherever they are from,do their best first for them and their immediate family.
They then look at what they have left and decide whether they want to use what they don't really need to help others.Or whether to strive greedily for things that they want,but don't really need.
That is a simplistic difference between Socialism and Capitalism.
There is enough in the world for everybody,but too many take more than they need.

Hastings gull · Dec 31, 2014

Machiavelli said:
Of course. Both Trigaaar and Mustafa have been saying that humans have a particular 'nature' or 'essence'. Trigaaar says that we're competitive; Mustafa says that we're altruistic. I'm saying that we're neither, because we don't have a nature or essence. This is because we possess agency, and can adapt to situations such that we become other than -- or different from -- what we have been.

The second comment has been understood by beorhthelm (see post 85), and relates to a metaphor that if the economy grows, that growth will be shared throughout the population. This is something that Trigaaar regularly states on this board.
My claim, by contrast, is that the wealth of a growing economy was shared in the post-war period, from 1945 to about 1979, but has not been subsequently. There is abundant evidence to support this claim, for instance, from the World Bank's leading figure on poverty and inequality, Branko Milanovic, and more recently, from Thomas Piketty (see: http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/en/capital21c2 ) whose book Capital in the Twenty-First Century published this year, already translated into 37 languages and the FT's book of the year is well worth reading.

I thank you for your time. I am not an economist, so really should not comment. Is it really that simple a watershed -after 1979, it all changed.

beorhthelm · Dec 31, 2014

Hastings gull said:
Is it really that simple a watershed -after 1979, it all changed.

not in the slightest. a to-be significant political event occured in one nation, but economically nothing of note changed until a few years later here or elsewhere.

to add Deng Xiaoping coming to power in China and bringing in market based economic policies in 1978 probably had far more significant affect on our global economics today. thats a potential watershed if you want one.

Hastings gull · Dec 31, 2014

Guerrero said:
Virtually all Human Beings,wherever they are from,do their best first for them and their immediate family.
They then look at what they have left and decide whether they want to use what they don't really need to help others.Or whether to strive greedily for things that they want, but don't really need.
That is a simplistic difference between Socialism and Capitalism.
There is enough in the world for everybody, but too many take more than they need.

I thought that your first part was excellent but then, in my humble opinion, you spoil your argument with that very simplistic conclusion. To be fair, you do say it is simplistic. I presume socialism equates to the highlighted part? Your final sentence -enough what for everybody? Lets say it is food you mean -doubtless you, like I and most others on here, will have eaten more than we need, but are we at fault for this? Is it that simple then to say that because we have gorged ourselves this Xmas, others go hungry.

jakarta · Dec 31, 2014

Hastings gull said:
I thank you for your time. I am not an economist, so really should not comment. Is it really that simple a watershed -after 1979, it all changed.

I thought it was about time someone got around to blaming it all on Margaret Thatcher....... :lolol:

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Greece crisis: Europe on edge over snap election

Well-known member

Comfortably numb.

A. Virgo, Football Genius

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

aka Cap'n Carl Firecrotch

Well-known member

Well-known member

A. Virgo, Football Genius

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

A. Virgo, Football Genius

Well-known member

Well-known member

Share this page