RLP
Bluelighter
Just living in an area with an Asda is bad enough.
-
🇬🇧 🇸🇪 🇿🇦 🇮🇪 🇬🇭 🇩🇪 🇪🇺
European & African
Drug Discussion
Welcome Guest!
Posting Rules Bluelight Rules -
EADD Moderators: Shambles
Growth up, unemployment down, 2014 is our year.
- Thread starter RLP
- Start date
RLP
Bluelighter
Don't hurt me. Take my money.
knock
Bluelighter
I'm not driving 30 miles to the nearest waitrose when there's an ASDA right outside my house
RLP
Bluelighter
Lick my magnificent abs.
RLP
Bluelighter
Right here. Right now.
You know you want it, hey hey hey.
You know you want it, hey hey hey.
Vurtual
Bluelighter
At the risk of taking troll bait - here's a rant:
I think it's hard to believe the figures being pushed by the BBC (hard to believe anything from the big brother corporation). 4 out of 5 of the new 'jobs' are in london, and don't stack up under analysis (reduced wages, in-work benefits, zero hours, workfare etc); and the gdp figures don't tell you much if the amount that the top companies profits have gone up doesn't 'trickle down' to anyone else.
Can't remember the figures, but we managed with tax rates as high as 90% between 50s and the 80s with no real problems (don't forget this is after a threshold, so they don't loose all their money and suddenly become poor) - in fact it was the longest period of prosperity and economic stability on record (until the oil 'crisis'). This wasn't so good for the capitalists though as their profits slowly dwindled as most peoples wages got better over time (but whose country is it?) - hence they rebelled and brought in the neoliberal/thatcherite stuff (cut cut cu(n)t) to take back some of the gains the people had grudgingly been given in fear of socialism spreading here properly (rather than just social democracy).
While neoliberalism is sold as economic theory, i think many don't really believe it at the top - it's just self-serving if you're in the elite (like believing in ayn rand) - anywhere this sort of 'trickle down' economics has been tried it's failed in its own terms as economics; though succeeded if it's job was upward redistribution - same as current austerity. (don't say it worked under thatcher as she rode the north sea oil boom - try pinochet).
As for thinking the economy is the same as a household budget, that's only true if you can create your own currency - otherwise it doesn't apply. Basic macro economics (before the voodoo bullshit that's mainstream now) tells you you control the inherent booms and busts of capitalism by government spending in a recession to create demand (and cutting in a boom). That the current lot (labour and tory) have got everyone to believe the neo-liberal bullshit is a victory for the craven media (like getting turkeys to vote for xmas).
The government could print money (they're already printing money and giving it to bankers right now) and spend it on infrastructure/useful stuff and it would create growth (give the money to poor people and they spend it cos it's all they've got). Even the imf admits spending has a 1.5 multiplier these days. The neoliberal ideology has got countries to agree to only borrowing money with interest from commercial banks rather than 'print' money - this makes the debt spiral out of control (without the interest of the government borrowing of the last few decades, we'd be in surplus now (i remeber reading somewhere...)). imo this is a bit of a banker take over of governments (countries that refused to do this include iraq, libya, iran, syria - see a pattern?). We should take back control of our money from private banks and have a proper public bank (like bank of north dakota) - the defecit would dissappear pretty quickly as we'd only owe interest to ourselves.
(that was all second hand half remembered opinions - pick apart at will)
^^^
Also i reckon people should be cautious about what's going on in ukraine - it's classic western destabilisation tactics (there's even a us army manual about it): the majority of the people support the government (as shown in a recent (observed) election) - and we'd never bring in anti-protest laws would we (ipna anyone?); western agencies have been funneling money and covert/overt support to the minority 'protestors' (can you imagine the fuss if putin was sending as much cash/support to occupy); they also include many nasty fascists (our usual preferred allies). This has been going on for years (eg sending al quaeda to dagestan/chechnya). This surrounding of russia is modern imperialism - the 'great game' never stopped. (not to say russia isn't playing too)
end of rant
I think it's hard to believe the figures being pushed by the BBC (hard to believe anything from the big brother corporation). 4 out of 5 of the new 'jobs' are in london, and don't stack up under analysis (reduced wages, in-work benefits, zero hours, workfare etc); and the gdp figures don't tell you much if the amount that the top companies profits have gone up doesn't 'trickle down' to anyone else.
Can't remember the figures, but we managed with tax rates as high as 90% between 50s and the 80s with no real problems (don't forget this is after a threshold, so they don't loose all their money and suddenly become poor) - in fact it was the longest period of prosperity and economic stability on record (until the oil 'crisis'). This wasn't so good for the capitalists though as their profits slowly dwindled as most peoples wages got better over time (but whose country is it?) - hence they rebelled and brought in the neoliberal/thatcherite stuff (cut cut cu(n)t) to take back some of the gains the people had grudgingly been given in fear of socialism spreading here properly (rather than just social democracy).
While neoliberalism is sold as economic theory, i think many don't really believe it at the top - it's just self-serving if you're in the elite (like believing in ayn rand) - anywhere this sort of 'trickle down' economics has been tried it's failed in its own terms as economics; though succeeded if it's job was upward redistribution - same as current austerity. (don't say it worked under thatcher as she rode the north sea oil boom - try pinochet).
As for thinking the economy is the same as a household budget, that's only true if you can create your own currency - otherwise it doesn't apply. Basic macro economics (before the voodoo bullshit that's mainstream now) tells you you control the inherent booms and busts of capitalism by government spending in a recession to create demand (and cutting in a boom). That the current lot (labour and tory) have got everyone to believe the neo-liberal bullshit is a victory for the craven media (like getting turkeys to vote for xmas).
The government could print money (they're already printing money and giving it to bankers right now) and spend it on infrastructure/useful stuff and it would create growth (give the money to poor people and they spend it cos it's all they've got). Even the imf admits spending has a 1.5 multiplier these days. The neoliberal ideology has got countries to agree to only borrowing money with interest from commercial banks rather than 'print' money - this makes the debt spiral out of control (without the interest of the government borrowing of the last few decades, we'd be in surplus now (i remeber reading somewhere...)). imo this is a bit of a banker take over of governments (countries that refused to do this include iraq, libya, iran, syria - see a pattern?). We should take back control of our money from private banks and have a proper public bank (like bank of north dakota) - the defecit would dissappear pretty quickly as we'd only owe interest to ourselves.
(that was all second hand half remembered opinions - pick apart at will)
^^^
Also i reckon people should be cautious about what's going on in ukraine - it's classic western destabilisation tactics (there's even a us army manual about it): the majority of the people support the government (as shown in a recent (observed) election) - and we'd never bring in anti-protest laws would we (ipna anyone?); western agencies have been funneling money and covert/overt support to the minority 'protestors' (can you imagine the fuss if putin was sending as much cash/support to occupy); they also include many nasty fascists (our usual preferred allies). This has been going on for years (eg sending al quaeda to dagestan/chechnya). This surrounding of russia is modern imperialism - the 'great game' never stopped. (not to say russia isn't playing too)
end of rant
Last edited:
parttime crackhead
Bluelighter
I can't be arsed reading the rest of the thread, someone has maybe picked you up on this already. Taxing the rich at, say 50%, doesn't take half of their income. Their are rate bands. If it's 50% over £150k you don't suddenly pay 50% of everything as soon as you hit £150,001. In that example you would only pay 50% on the £1. You would pay the lower rates on the rest.
The 'rich people will leave if we tax them an extra 5%' mob are talking shite. Who the fuck moves country because they have to pay an extra £500 on every £10k they earn over £150k? Who the fuck actually needs over £150k p/a anyway?
If we can't tax the rich then burn the fuckers. Might save on the heating bills.
mydrugbuddy
Bluelighter
I didnt know that. I sit corrected in that case.
Allthough loads of the UKs richest pop stars did actually leave this country in the 1980s due to the high tax rates. As usual with discussions, there are the 2 extremes of opinion, and the truth of the matter is usually a compromise somehwere in the middle.
StoneHappyMonday
Bluelighter
- Joined
- May 10, 2001
- Messages
- 18,084
I'll settle for burn the fuckers being the middle of the road compromise.
