Greece crisis: Europe on edge over snap election

[beorhthelm]

In political theory, private property and personal property are not the same thing - their exact definitions are debatable, but generally personal property is items intended for personal use - such as homes, clothes, vehicles and sometimes money. Private property is a social relationship between an owner and persons deprived eg. factories, mines, natural vegetation, etc.

So you don't need to worry about losing your personal workshop - and of course if you begin employing people at your workshop to make you wealthier, the people you employ should get a fair piece of the pie.

a grand contrivance to cover up the inherent flaw. it leads us to the following in lay language: personal owned property is private, while private owned property is public. how about if you employ people their piece of the pie is their wage? why do you not recognise the risk and investment that went into the endevour of creating the workshop, which no one made a fair contribution to?

Anyone who doesn't own the privately owned entity.

so, if you own that entity you are not deprived. ergo, you support widespread share ownership the foundation of modern capitialism. interesting twist. in the end, both the left and right of sensible economics aim for the same - the pooling of resources to increase production (or other services). the only difference is the left want the state to own and control the pool, the right want the market to own and control the pool. in the former i have no incentives and no input to the process, in the latter i gain from my efforts as i have direct contibution to what happens.

 

[Triggaaar]

The free market is a highly problematic way of managing the worlds resources, as we can observe through the glaring inequality, poverty, destruction of the environment and excessive waste of our planets finite resources.

The free market has been proved to be better than any other method. You don't like it, you want the world to share everything, but you rightly acknowledge you don't have an alternative. So you've identified that the world isn't fair (I don't think anyone could argue a good case against that), but you don't have a solution - that's where we're at.

 

[Guerrero]

There are always people manipulating the "Free market".
Rendering it not so free after all.

 

[Hastings gull]

There are always people manipulating the "Free market".
Rendering it not so free after all.

is it at all possible that you can enlarge on this so I know what you mean, please? Oh, and please not telling me that it is simple,like last night.

 

[Guerrero]

You should be at least disciplined if not sacked for bringing such personal political convictions into your workplace.

It proves that a lot of the Education 'profession' are not in the least professional in how they approach their work.

My wife is an ex Head Teacher and I am a Part-Time University Lecturer (when I am not doing my full-time Consultancy work) and I utterly despise this sort of nonsense from so-called Teachers.

Good.
People like you are not educators.You are Fascists.

 

[Guerrero]

Thank you for your reply. I assume you have seen the irony of you working in a private school and telling us all about how we should only have what we need and not what we want, and not look after number 1. I worked for 30 years in comprehensives, teaching less fortunate members of society than those you come into contact with, do not share your political views and also believe in looking after the poor, elderly and infirm. In fact my mother , aged 87 and with Alzheimers, lives in an annexe attached to our house. The difference between our careers shows all too clearly the dangers of simplistic statements, such as you indulge in. Things are most certainly not best kept simple, because life is not that simple!
And I also think that you are on rather dangerous territory asking children such a ridiculous question - it is hardly either or, is it?

I WORK at the school.I cannot afford to send my children to it.
I am indeed a dangerous teacher.I provoke children into thinking about things rather than carrying on the indoctrination of their parents.

 

[Hastings gull]

Small business are not and have never been the problem - the problem is the large corporations that they have become. They are incredibly efficient establishments, but the people at the top are no longer the founders or creators, they are the owners, or shareholders, who more often than not get very rich for doing nothing at all... this is where workers need to be getting a piece of the pie, rather than the pathetic wages that most will pay those at the bottom.



I don't think we need to hand more power to the state - I think we need to reinvent the state, and democracy. The free market is a highly problematic way of managing the worlds resources, as we can observe through the glaring inequality, poverty, destruction of the environment and excessive waste of our planets finite resources. It would be considerably better if it were managed scientifically and mathematically - so if not by the state then who? Whoever is best for the job, experts who can make the best informed decisions, with democratic input from the public.

But you told me that we do not need experts but that direct democracy is what is needed and that the public should decide. So we do need people like MPs, who may have expertise in certain areas?

 

[Guerrero]

Share the wealth.

Easy.

 

[Buzzer]

I am indeed a dangerous teacher.I provoke children into thinking about things rather than carrying on the indoctrination of their parents.

Do you lay awake at night dreaming of the students standing on the tables and saluting you "Captain, oh my captain" as the headmaster and chairman of the governors leads you from the classroom for daring to corrupt the youth with free thought? You do, don't you?

 

[beorhthelm]

Share the wealth.

Easy.

how. preferably in a way that does not diminish it.

 

[Hastings gull]

I WORK at the school.I cannot afford to send my children to it.
I am indeed a dangerous teacher.I provoke children into thinking about things rather than carrying on the indoctrination of their parents.

Your comment about where you send your children is irrelevant -I have not mentioned this and would not presume so to do. As you well know, I was pointing out the foolishness of your simplistic statement that socialism means this and capitalism means that, when my experience directly contradicts that. Your statement above matches the sweeping arrogance of last night - last night one could not possibly be for capitalism and yet care for the poor and elderly etc, and tonight your way of doing things with children is so much more superior than parent's "indoctrination", as you put it. How do you know that they do not encourage the same for their children? No, only you can do that, and, of course, choosing a subject close to your own heart.

 

[Guerrero]

Do you lay awake at night dreaming of the students standing on the tables and saluting you "Captain, oh my captain" as the headmaster and chairman of the governors leads you from the classroom for daring to corrupt the youth with free thought? You do, don't you?

Not often.

 

[Buzzer]

Not often.

You will sometime soon recall that comment about being a 'dangerous teacher' and cringe though. And often.

 

[Triggaaar]

There are countless alternatives, as I've said time and time again

None that have (or could have) ever worked.

 

[Hastings gull]

Share the wealth.

Easy.

Are you trying to out-do Mustafa when it comes to simplistic statements?

 

[Guerrero]

is it at all possible that you can enlarge on this so I know what you mean, please? Oh, and please not telling me that it is simple,like last night.

It means that there are people who are in a position to get richer because of their position in society and their ability to manipulate things their way rather than there actually being a free market.

 

[Guerrero]

Are you trying to out-do Mustafa when it comes to simplistic statements?

Yes.

Are you trying to over complicate things to lay a smoke screen to cover the fact that you are totally clueless?

 

[Hastings gull]

How? Global Wealth Tax + Basic Income would be a start.

What's fair? All people having a home with energy, clean water and nutritious food < this is a priority, I'm sure you'll agree. People becoming wealthy through hard work and innovation - but nobody should be allowed to get TOO wealthy, because money is power and power corrupts, which is the great problem of the modern world.

Yes I do agree that this is a priority -who would disagree with that? But then as ever, like your first sentence, it becomes vague. Yes, work hard, but not too hard or else you can't keep your hard-earned cash; what a disincentive. Stop producing at 3 o clock, because you will get too wealthy. You either want to create the wealth which can then be used to help those less fortunate, or you only want to create a little bit of wealth, and thus give them less. You might not like it, but people must be given free rein to do as they wish, and not be artificially held back -that would be a recipe for economic disaster. Yes, this will mean inequality, and doubtless more greed to feed on greed, but at least there will be wealth created to put back into society.

 

[Hastings gull]

Are you saying there is absolutely no other system better than the one we have? I'm sure on reflection you will realise how ridiculous that sounds.

Think of where humanity will be in 100, or even 1,000 years time. I am sure that you will imagine us to have moved onto better economic and political systems, just as we have always done throughout human history.

Just because you don't believe it's possible, or perhaps don't understand the workability of the alternatives, suggesting that we are "stuck with it and there is no better way" is a ridiculous way of thinking that contradicts what we know about human nature.

Capitalism will not last forever, this is a fact, it's a system that relies on economic growth and it's impossible for anything to grow indefinitely. So consider what comes after, and what can work [considerably] better

It has been going for an awfully long time. And yet again, you tell us that the inevitable collapse of capitalism is a fact -it is NOT a fact, it is your considered opinion. I don't think the post is saying what you are implying at all - just that he/she needs convincing as to the practicalities of what you have suggested, and lets face it, that is not exactly your strong point, is it?

 

[Hastings gull]

Yes.

Are you trying to over complicate things to lay a smoke screen to cover the fact that you are totally clueless?

There's our teacher -who tells us that he tries to encourage independent thinking and debate, but when he himself gets closely questioned, the insults start to fly. No wonder you like to do it with Year 7 -they are more gullible. Not you at your best.