*** OFFICIAL BREXIT SUNLIT UPLANDS and #MEGA THREAD ***

[OngBonga]

Do they also deserve to have underfunded public services?

No. On this we can agree. But people don't have underfunded public services because some people are wealthy. It's because some people are corrupt.

[OngBonga]

You mean like the kid who has to go to a state school because his parents can't afford to send him to Eton? Yeah, lazy cunt. Why hasn't been out there grafting?

Do you think every kid in the country should have equal access to Eton?

Or just bollocks to toff schools and make the rich kids go to shit schools like everyone else? Let's just lower the bar.

[Poopadoop]

Do you think every kid in the country should have equal access to Eton?

Or just bollocks to toff schools and make the rich kids go to shit schools like everyone else? Let's just lower the bar.

Sticking up for the rights of toffs to get a better education than everyone else. Doff cap, tug forelock. Glad you know your place.

[Poopadoop]

On a lighter note, I'm torn between thinking the cops overreacted and the kid probably should have known he wasn't supposed to be there.

https://twitter.com/boca_meda/status...73062063063043

[MadMojoMonkey]

So, ong. If what is existing isn't fair. And what we propose isn't fair... and nothing is fair.

Then can't we just do the unfair thing that reduces human hardships?

[OngBonga]

Then can't we just do the unfair thing that reduces human hardships?

I'm sorry I'm yet to see anyone offer a solution to human hardships. So far all I've heard is poop say he wants to confiscate castles off a family.

And I've avoided bringing this up so far because it goes without saying and it's not like I give a fuck, but the Royal Family are not all take and no give. Their property is worth a lot of money and their security is a lot too but the tourism they bring in is worth more.

Honestly I expect Royal tourism to go down now anyway, people wanted to see the Queen, but it won't fall off a cliff. The Royal Family still have significant economic value to the country. Is it worth the cost? If you believe the official figures, yes.

[OngBonga]

Sticking up for the rights of toffs to get a better education than everyone else. Doff cap, tug forelock. Glad you know your place.

I'm actually sticking up for the right of a talented teacher to earn more money at a private school, and the right of wealthy people to spend their money as they see fit. Capitalism baby.

[Poopadoop]

I'm sorry I'm yet to see anyone offer a solution to human hardships. So far all I've heard is poop say he wants to confiscate castles off a family.

If only there was some way for a government to take money from the rich and use it to improve lives of the poor. Like, some kind of.... taxation?

Their property is worth a lot of money and their security is a lot too but the tourism they bring in is worth more.

Citation needed.

If anything we could attract more tourists if we just shoveled the royals into one house like everyone else has, and kept the buildings as tourist attractions.

Let's face it, no-one is coming from another country just to try to get a glimpse of King Chuck. They also weren't coming to try to get a glimpse of Elizabeth. They're coming to see their property.

[Poopadoop]

I'm actually sticking up for the right of a talented teacher to earn more money at a private school, and the right of wealthy people to spend their money as they see fit. Capitalism baby.

Yes, because it's not about having vastly more resources and lower staff-to-student ratios, and tax-exempt status to makes private schools better for rich kids, it's all about rewarding good teachers.

[OngBonga]

From Twitter -

500g Lurpak over £5 at Tesco.


How are people going to eat this winter?

I mean this beautifully illustrates the concept of poverty in the UK. This guy is a lawyer, and he's moaning about the price of Lurpak like it's what people on a low income eat. Lurpak is like the most expensive brand on the shelf at Tesco, and this guy thinks people struggling to eat are buying it?

1kg of Clover is around £3.50, that's how people will eat you moron. They'll buy cheaper food. This isn't poverty.

[OngBonga]

If only there was some way for a government to take money from the rich and use it to improve lives of the poor. Like, some kind of.... taxation?

Yes, I'm not spoon, I'm not saying tax is theft. I'm down with tax. But the balance has to be right so we don't overtax businesses and in turn stifle the economy.

If anything we could attract more tourists if we just shoveled the royals into one house like everyone else has, and kept the buildings as tourist attractions.

So just have the tourists in one place, London, instead of going to various places around the country? You think this is better?

Let's face it, no-one is coming from another country just to try to get a glimpse of King Chuck.

People came from around the world to join a 20 hour queue.

They also weren't coming to try to get a glimpse of Elizabeth. They're coming to see their property.

They're coming for a lot more... the property, the history, the city, and maybe for a glimpse of any of the Royal Family.

Yes, because it's not about having vastly more resources and lower staff-to-student ratios, and tax-exempt status to makes private schools better for rich kids, it's all about rewarding good teachers.

Ok so let's get rid of the bullshit tax exempt status, but keep schools where teachers can earn what they are economically worth instead of what the state deems their value to be.

[Poopadoop]

https://twitter.com/Lowkey0nline/sta...95792905793536

Ok, so as I suspected the kid rode right through the signs and in front of the motorcade.

Woman yells out "shoot him!" lol.

[Poopadoop]

Yes, I'm not spoon, I'm not saying tax is theft. I'm down with tax. But the balance has to be right so we don't overtax businesses and in turn stifle the economy.

I'm not talking about corporation tax. Taxing rich people puts money back into the economy instead of them piling it into a bank in the Cayman islands.

So just have the tourists in one place, London, instead of going to various places around the country? You think this is better?

That makes sense if you assume the only thing that brings tourists to the UK is the royal family. Kinda doubt that's true though.

People came from around the world to join a 20 hour queue.

So? They'd come from around the world for a football game too. Should we give Ronaldo a few palaces too?

They're coming for a lot more... the property, the history, the city, and maybe for a glimpse of any of the Royal Family.

Surely that means the main family, not the cousins and random dukes and barons or whoever else is on the gravy train. You can keep Chuck, his wife and the direct descendants around, give them a nice place to sit, and get rid of the rest of them.

Ok so let's get rid of the bullshit tax exempt status, but keep schools where teachers can earn what they are economically worth instead of what the state deems their value to be.

Here's a better idea: give every kid a quality education whether their parents are rich or not. Have programs for the gifted ones. Have help for the learning disabled. Don't make any of it depend on how much wealth a kid's parents have.

[OngBonga]

https://twitter.com/Lowkey0nline/sta...95792905793536

Ok, so as I suspected the kid rode right through the signs and in front of the motorcade.

Woman yells out "shoot him!" lol.

The nonchalant bloodthirst is a bit much but he's lucky to not get shot.

I'm not talking about corporation tax. Taxing rich people puts money back into the economy instead of them piling it into a bank in the Cayman islands.

Fun fact - we already tax rich people. My stepdad has a £2000 Christmas bonus this year. Before tax. After tax it's £1200. He's not "rich" but he earns well so he pays 45% income tax. The more he earns, the more tax he has to pay.

That makes sense if you assume the only thing that brings tourists to the UK is the royal family. Kinda doubt that's true though.

Of course it's not true, the food and weather is important too. And the football and beer culture.

We get a lot of Chinese tourists who are here precisely to see the Royal Family. The Chinese absolutely love history.

So? They'd come from around the world for a football game too. Should we give Ronaldo a few palaces too?

If Ronaldo lived in a Palace in London owned by his family for a thousand years, then I wouldn't give a fuck about him living in it.

Surely that means the main family, not the cousins and random dukes and barons or whoever else is on the gravy train.

Sure, but you're not thinking like someone who has an interest in the Royal Family. The Queen would have been the one to see, if not her then Charles, William and Harry. But if you only see Princess Michael of Kent, that's still better than nothing. That's still a memory. People who are interested in British history would be more excited to see random Royals than you would.

Here's a better idea: give every kid a quality education whether their parents are rich or not.

You mean give them an education from elite teachers who can earn more by not working for the state?

Or should the state pay top dollar for teachers and then let a lucky small % of random kids have access to these elite teachers?

[MadMojoMonkey]

I mean... yes, we should be using tax dollars to invest in education. That's the future skillsets of our future citizens that we're investing in. We're investing in ourselves and our future when we invest in schools.

Of course wealth redistribution is always going to be frought with unfairness to some... but the goal is to produce a net gain in fairness to all. Those few who are hit with unfairness are the most able to handle random unfair BS in life - with their wealth to cushion and cope with consequences. It's not ideal, but it's better than doing nothing.

It's good that some people are greedy and want to build economic empires. That's a net good on society. But that net good, left unrestricted and unregulated is a supreme bad for society. Wealth consolidation is not to the benefit of many, but of few. The unfairness of taking that money and giving it to others is what it is. It's unfair. But leaving the disadvantaged to remain disadvantaged... letting innocent children suffer consequences of their parents failures... that's not fair, either.

[Poopadoop]

The nonchalant bloodthirst is a bit much but he's lucky to not get shot.

The first clip I saw (linked earlier) made it look like he maybe just accidentally stumbled into the procession. This one is much clearer that he's a div. So yea, lucky he wasn't shot. A black kid doing the same stunt would have got one between the eyes for sure.

[Poopadoop]

The minimum the royals should have to give up is the stuff they robbed from the colonies. There's no reason the royal crown should have gems on it from India, S. Africa, etc.. Fuck off. Same for a lot of their tapestries, furniture, etc..

You can perhaps make an argument they earned their palaces and castles and estates and whatnot (though I bet if you dug into the history, they didn't spend a penny on them but had the peasants build them and pay for them), but there's no way they should be allowed to keep plunder from the Empire days.

[Poopadoop]

Goddamn drunken Canadian Libtard PM!

I mean, if he was drunk and goofing off at the funeral itself, ok. But the night before? Who cares?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-funeral.html

[OngBonga]

You know how you'd have cared if it was Boris? Well that's why some people cry about what Trudeau does.

[Poopadoop]

You know how you'd have cared if it was Boris?

Citation needed. I don't care what any politician does in their spare time, as long as they're not breaking the law. Boris could have all the parties he wanted when he wasn't working, just not during lockdown.

[Poopadoop]

Interesting that the DM is all over Trudeau for karaoke the night before the funeral but doesn't have anything to say about Kwarteng acting coked up at the actual funeral itself.

https://twitter.com/LouisHenwood/sta...90023661699074

[OngBonga]

Citation needed. I don't care what any politician does in their spare time, as long as they're not breaking the law. Boris could have all the parties he wanted when he wasn't working, just not during lockdown.

Interesting. So you draw the line at "breaking the law".

So presumably you don't have a problem with the "BloJo" incident? I mean, it's not illegal to have your penis sucked by a willing lady.

If there's a degree of morality at play, well partying during a period of national mourning might not seem appropriate. Certainly if it were Boris, lots of people on the left would have been all over him. And while I personally wouldn't give a fuck, I'd understand the outrage.

[Poopadoop]

Interesting. So you draw the line at "breaking the law".

So presumably you don't have a problem with the "BloJo" incident? I mean, it's not illegal to have your penis sucked by a willing lady.

It is a sackable offense though. If I would get sacked for it, a PM surely should.

If there's a degree of morality at play, well partying during a period of national mourning might not seem appropriate.

I think you overestimate how much anyone in Canada cares about the royal family. The flagshagger:indifferent person ratio there is not what it is here.

You could argue doing a karaoke a night before a state funeral is bad form at worst. Nothing to lose your shit over though. People traveling to funerals are not morally obliged to spend the whole period of their travel being somber and taciturn. The time to be somber is at the funeral itself, and/or when meeting the bereaved family.

It's certainly not on a par with getting your phone out and having some giggles at the funeral itself like Kwarteng did. That's disrespectful no matter whose funeral it is.

Certainly if it were Boris, lots of people on the left would have been all over him. And while I personally wouldn't give a fuck, I'd understand the outrage.

Given his reputation I'd be surprised if he did go 10 full days without partying. It's just that no-one happened to leak their videos of it. Still, I wouldn't hold it against him. It's not like everyone's life should stop for 10 days every time a figurehead of state dies.

[The Bean Counter]

Your argument seems to boil down to "their measures are bad because they don't individually analyse each of 70m different people's circumstances."





Try living on what Ong does for six months and then tell me that.

Nope, but I'm done with explaining why this "analysis" is useless.

Ong might have been relatively poor in a financial sense, but not living in poverty by his own admission.

[The Bean Counter]

Here's a better idea: give every kid a quality education whether their parents are rich or not. Have programs for the gifted ones. Have help for the learning disabled. Don't make any of it depend on how much wealth a kid's parents have.

Education research these days advocates for mixed ability classes being optimal for all students. That surprises me, but that's what Mrs Bean tells me (she reads a lot of it). Question though: why should gifted kids have their own special program just because they're smart?

It's unlikely that the standard of teachers working in private education is higher on average. They aren't held to the same standard of assessment and their value add isn't high. Life is easier though, when you start with a bunch of kids that have to be smart enough to pass an entrance exam, all of which have academically motivated parents and lessons are being delivered in good facilities. I'm not comfortable with private education, but we'll try and get Mini Bean into the free, selective grammar school if he's bright enough.

[OngBonga]

Ong might have been relatively poor in a financial sense, but not living in poverty by his own admission.

Some people with the same circumstances as me might say they have been living in poverty. The difference between me and them is that I own my life failures, I don't blame anyone else, I'm not a victim. A lot of poor people think they are victims. They're not. Poop will disagree strongly because he blames society. In the UK, in nearly all cases, I blame the individual. Being poor should only be temporary, unless you're satisfied with the life of being poor.

I do find it funny that me, the guy who only just got a job after a decade of unemployment, is less sympathetic to poor people than the guy who has a nice career and whose tax helps to support poor people. I never moaned about being poor because I always knew what the solution was... to get a fucking job.

[Poopadoop]

Ong might have been relatively poor in a financial sense, but not living in poverty by his own admission.

Because he defines poverty as not starving...

But anyways, glad we agree that the bigger issue at stake is wealth inequality.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Question though: why should gifted kids have their own special program just because they're smart?

As someone who went through the gifted program throughout Jr. high and high school, here's my take:

The point of school is to educate someone. In order to educate someone, you need to expose them to material that challenges them. I was not challenged in my classes.

Any typical hour of my high school experience:
I enter the room and find out what the assignment that will be assigned that day after the teacher is done lecturing.
I complete the assignment during the lecture, finishing the assignment before they're finished teaching it.
I goof off on my graphing calculator until the lecture's finished.
I show that I've complete the assignment and have the teacher sign my hall pass so I can l GTFO of that room instead of sit there playing with my calculator for another 30 minutes.
I go to the gifted class and actually engage my mind.


The classroom does not reach everyone. As a society, we either let those children get nothing from the school except daycare, or we create programs and alternatives to meet their needs.

[OngBonga]

Because he defines poverty as not starving...

I define poverty as being very poor., lacking basic essential such as somewhere safe to live, and regular meals. Nobody in the UK is, or should be, very poor. If you ask for help, you get given, for fuck all, 1/3 of the national average income. Remember we're the 5th or 6th biggest economy in the world. 1/3 the average is a large amount of money when compared to the global average income.

Not being able to afford the latest iPhone is not poverty. Other people getting richer doesn't make you poorer. You talk about wealth inequality like it's a bad thing. It's not. If you get a pay rise and I don't, then you have just done your bit to increase the wealth gap. You're getting paid more while I'm not. Well done, you probably deserve it.

[OngBonga]

£10k a year is not poverty. That's roughly what you can expect if you claim basic benefits.

£10k a year is poor by UK standards, but if you're defining this as poverty then idk what to say.

£20k a year is 2/3 the national average, and is what you can expect to earn on the minimum wage full time. It's also what you can expect on benefits if you're disabled or mentally ill. If 2/3 the average of a large global economy is "poor" then I still don't know what to say.

Let's just give everyone a million pounds so nobody is poor any more. Well, actually all we do there is massively increase inflation and create a new threshold for "poor".

Screw it, let's confiscate castles and sell them, that should make 100 people not poor for a year or two.

[OngBonga]

Meanwhile in Iran, women are burning their hijabs and the Islamic flag of Iran (punishable by death) because Iranian morality police beat to death a woman who wasn't wearing her hijab properly. Revolution is in the air.

Some Muslims believe the left's refusal to acknowledge the horrible misogyny of Islam is "disastrous".

I’m a hijabi in the US who desperately wants to take it off, can’t cuz I’ll be kicked out the house + smeared and shamed by the muslim community in my city. The left’s denial of misogyny that’s prominent among Muslims is disastrous (muslims know how to deceive them very well)

[Poopadoop]

If you get a pay rise and I don't, then you have just done your bit to increase the wealth gap. You're getting paid more while I'm not. Well done, you probably deserve it.

MBN to live in a simple world where everyone gets what they deserve.

[OngBonga]

MBN to live in a simple world where everyone gets what they deserve.

I don't give a fuck if you deserve it or not. It's none of my business, and it's not making me poorer. And "deserve" is one of those super subjective words, like "fair".

If you get a pay rise because the boss likes you, then you deserve it because it's the boss who in this instance gets to decide who deserves what. His definition of "deserve" is what matters here.

[MadMojoMonkey]

The problem with this entire issue is that everyone's right, here.

It's not fair to take people's legitimately earned wealth and just give it to someone else, just 'cause.

It's not fair that we've built a society that disproportionately distributes cultural advantages to some.

People have the right to not have their wealth taken from them by force.

People have the right to a share of the wealth of the nation in which they live.


The question is how much disparity do we think is appropriate or best in our society between the wealthiest and least wealthy.
Is it very civilized to blame poor people for being poor? Even if it is "their fault"? Does it best serve society to give children a shit education system because their parents are poor? Does it best serve society to allow Jeff Bezos to spend millions if not billions of dollars on a personal space ship? I'm not saying there's no value in letting him do that. I'm asking if that's the best value we as a society could garner from that same money. Noting the stark contrast between what SpaceX is trying to do and what Blue Origin is trying to do.

It's not fair to take Bezos' money simply because we personally don't think he should spend it like that. Not remotely.
It's also not fair to funnel billions of dollars of our nations' wealth into such a tiny constituency, regardless of whether that money was acquired legitimately while children are being underserved in our schools, their teachers living in or near the poverty line.

What we invest in shows our values. Investing in a tool like Bezos is fine. But at the detriment of children and those who teach them? I don't like the current balance. IDK what the right balance is, but this is bad and getting more pronounced.

[OngBonga]

idk what Bezos is doing but it's his money, he can do what he likes with it provided it was legitimately accrued. I'd be more worried about the many billions that corrupt governments steal from the public through dodgy contracts and investments and whatever else they do. That's our money. That's the money that should be making our countries a better place. If that money was invested wisely, then we wouldn't need to talk about what Bezos is doing.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I don't think anyone here is arguing that wealthy people who have done crimes to get their wealth should probably not be allowed to keep their wealth.

Rather, you seem to be arguing that if current laws allow it, then it's fine.

I'm not talking about what "is" legal.

I'm talking about what "should be" legal.

I'm asking what is an ethical way to limit wealth disparity. I'm asking what is *more* fair than letting some fraction of a percent of our society have so much privilege while denying that privilege to the rest.


I don't even like ong's angle about "you're not poor if you aren't hungry or have clean socks" or whatever he's saying. Being poor isn't a static thing. It's a relative thing. Having as much as everyone else, no one feels poor. Seeing that you have little while others have much, that's poor.
You don't reduce poverty by giving people food and homes and clothes. You reduce poverty by bringing the poorest and richest closer together.
You don't let a family member wallow in shit while you swim in gold coins, right? And we're all one family. One society.
It's flawed, but it's part of the unflawed picture of what we are as humans. We are communal. We thrive and perish in groups.

[OngBonga]

I'm not talking about what "is" legal.

I'm talking about what "should be" legal.

Fair enough, but then we're entering the murky world of subjectivity once again. And if someone plays the system legally but with questionable ethics, the problem isn't the individual, it's the system.

You don't reduce poverty by giving people food and homes and clothes. You reduce poverty by bringing the poorest and richest closer together.

We fundamentally disagree here. We reduce poverty by raising the standard of living, not by nerfing rich people so they become a little poorer, which in turn reduces income inequality.

[The Bean Counter]

After the interest rise today and the dramatic weakening of Sterling, this country really is fucked. While external factors haven't helped, 12 years of tory rule have done us in. I can't believe these two items aren't being talked about in the same manner as the energy price rises. And that's before the relatively well off get a tax break tomorrow.

[The Bean Counter]

The problem with this entire issue is that everyone's right, here.

It's not fair to take people's legitimately earned wealth and just give it to someone else, just 'cause.

It's not fair that we've built a society that disproportionately distributes cultural advantages to some.

People have the right to not have their wealth taken from them by force.

People have the right to a share of the wealth of the nation in which they live.


The question is how much disparity do we think is appropriate or best in our society between the wealthiest and least wealthy.

Agree, that's the debate. Combined with the most appropriate method. Governments have proven time and again they are sub-standard at allocating resources. The onus needs to be on the rich supporting charities that are effective at allocation. Not taxing the middle classes more so that the government can throw more money at things badly.

[The Bean Counter]

As someone who went through the gifted program throughout Jr. high and high school, here's my take:

The point of school is to educate someone. In order to educate someone, you need to expose them to material that challenges them. I was not challenged in my classes.

Any typical hour of my high school experience:
I enter the room and find out what the assignment that will be assigned that day after the teacher is done lecturing.
I complete the assignment during the lecture, finishing the assignment before they're finished teaching it.
I goof off on my graphing calculator until the lecture's finished.
I show that I've complete the assignment and have the teacher sign my hall pass so I can l GTFO of that room instead of sit there playing with my calculator for another 30 minutes.
I go to the gifted class and actually engage my mind.


The classroom does not reach everyone. As a society, we either let those children get nothing from the school except daycare, or we create programs and alternatives to meet their needs.

My experience was the same as yours, but without the gifted program. But modern teachers would argue that a good teacher challenges all kids in one lesson. And there are benefits to the smarter kids reinforcing their knowledge by helping the least able kids along. I don't know how true that is, but that's the current thinking. But it's difficult to change my own opinion based upon my own experience which is that I just wasn't challenged until further education.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Fair enough, but then we're entering the murky world of subjectivity once again. And if someone plays the system legally but with questionable ethics, the problem isn't the individual, it's the system.

That's basically what I'm saying is the case now. The social norms we have created allow for unethical acquisition of wealth.

It's immoral for a company to pay some of its employees many thousands of times more than others, IMO.
IDK what the "right" ratio should be, but the cultural acceptance of companies funneling huge percentages of their profits into only a few hands is fucked up.

We fundamentally disagree here. We reduce poverty by raising the standard of living, not by nerfing rich people so they become a little poorer, which in turn reduces income inequality.

My issue here is this:
Poor people in other places by our standards may feel wealthy by their own standards.
It's not about absolute wealth. It's about whether people have relatively as much as their neighbors.

It's a weird culture-ism to claim that someone else is poor because their standard of living is different than ours.

So it's not about absolutism. It's about relativism. It's about having as much or close to as much privilege as others in your own society.

[OngBonga]

Who would have thought that getting rid of Boris would result in an actual Conservative government?

[OngBonga]

It's immoral for a company to pay some of its employees many thousands of times more than others, IMO.

I mean the problem here is you're wanting to regulate the freedom of individuals and entities to agree to an economic relationship. Such regulation already exists in the form of minimum wage and discrimination laws, but you want to go further.

And I'm not sure here if you're referring to people doing similar jobs or not. Take Liverpool FC. They pay Mohammed Salah a great deal more than they pay their tea lady, but both are employees of Liverpool FC. The tea lady is likely on £9.50 an hour, which Salah earns in a nanosecond [citation needed]. But of course, they pay Salah what they have agreed with his agent is his fair economic value to the club.

In an ideal world people get paid their economic value. Some people are worth more than others for a variety of reasons. Who decides what reasons are and are not "fair"? I would argue that decision should be left to the markets. If Salah isn't worth what he's paid, then Liverpool FC lose money. The markets punish their poor financial choices. If they make too many mistakes like this, they will no longer be a top football club. The ultimate punishment is bankruptcy and relegation. So they are incentivised to make good, "fair" decisions. And by "fair" I mean the true economic value of the person they are employing, "fair" in this context has absolutely nothing to do with what anyone else earns, or the general standard of living.

It's not about absolute wealth. It's about whether people have relatively as much as their neighbors.

I find this problematic, as it is basically envy. Poor for me is about necessity. If other people have things you would like, non-essential things that just make life better, that doesn't make you poor, but it should incentivise you to be wealthier.

[OngBonga]

It's not about absolute wealth. It's about whether people have relatively as much as their neighbors.

I mean, to go further on this point, you're basically arguing that a millionaire surrounded by billionaires is poor. This extreme shows why I think it's bordering on ludicrous to use what other people have as a metric for "poor". What you have matters, what others have is irrelevant.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I mean the problem here is you're wanting to regulate the freedom of individuals and entities to agree to an economic relationship. Such regulation already exists in the form of minimum wage and discrimination laws, but you want to go further.

I'm saying that what is happening cannot go on. It is not a net good for society to have its wealth is only a few hands. The distance between the top and the bottom needs to be addressed as not an infinite ceiling. The more wealth is consolidated, the less there is invested in infrastructure and public betterment.

Some amount of wealth consolidation is good. Too much is too much.

We're heading well into the too much zone, IMO.

And I'm not sure here if you're referring to people doing similar jobs or not. Take Liverpool FC. They pay Mohammed Salah a great deal more than they pay their tea lady, but both are employees of Liverpool FC. The tea lady is likely on £9.50 an hour, which Salah earns in a nanosecond [citation needed]. But of course, they pay Salah what they have agreed with his agent is his fair economic value to the club.

The tea lady should be making a fuckload more. What's your argument? That the tea lady needs an agent? We all need agents?

That's kinda my point. If it's gotten to the point where only the rich who can afford the perk of having an agent can expect to be paid a commensurate share of their employer's income... that's messed up.

If the tea lady is working for a company that makes enough to pay some people a million times her wage, then that's a huge problem. That is not a just and fair employment relationship. The fact that laws allow for that situation is obscenely problematic, IMO.

In an ideal world people get paid their economic value. Some people are worth more than others for a variety of reasons. Who decides what reasons are and are not "fair"? I would argue that decision should be left to the markets.

We're doing that, and look what's happening.

I'm fine with rewarding advancement. I'm fine with people negotiating their wages. I'm fine with markets determining value.

I'm not fine with looking at the biggest picture and seeing the world's wealth being funneled into fewer and fewer hands.

I'm not claiming to know how to solve this problem. You're saying I don't have answers. Well... so we agree there.
You're claiming the problem doesn't exist. That's where we disagree. Not in how to go about solving it. Just that there is something that's a problem.

If Salah isn't worth what he's paid, then Liverpool FC lose money. The markets punish their poor financial choices. If they make too many mistakes like this, they will no longer be a top football club. The ultimate punishment is bankruptcy and relegation. So they are incentivised to make good, "fair" decisions. And by "fair" I mean the true economic value of the person they are employing, "fair" in this context has absolutely nothing to do with what anyone else earns, or the general standard of living.

Why does the tea lady not deserve her fair share of the company's profits? It's a company effort to bring in all the bucks. It's the players, and the coaches, and the advertisers and the sponsors, and the owners... and the tea ladies. All of them play a role.

It's totally messed up of any one of them is earning less than 0.01% what someone else in that same company makes, IMO.
The fact that we've been told culturally that anyone in a company can be of so little value to the company is fucked up.
The fact that we've been told to blame the victim for not working harder or negotiating better or whatever is also fucked up.

I bet the tea lady is busting her ass. Putting in the time. Knows more about tea than anyone else in the place. Can tell the temperature of water from across the room by the color of the vapor coming from the kettle. She's prob. fucking GOATED on the tea. You think Salah trust his tea from some back-alley tea monger?!?

So why doesn't the tea lady deserve her fair share?

I find this problematic, as it is basically envy. Poor for me is about necessity. If other people have things you would like, non-essential things that just make life better, that doesn't make you poor, but it should incentivise you to be wealthier.

It's exactly envy. I'm glad you see that. That's exactly what it is and nothing more or less will do it any justice.
It's about limiting envy for the safety and prosperity of the whole society.
Some envy is good. Too much is too much.
Marie Antoinette saying "Let them eat cake." is the scenario I think we're racing toward, but on a scale much larger than just one nation.

[OngBonga]

The tea lady should be making a fuckload more.

Why? There are an absolute fuck ton of people who would love that job for £9.50 an hour, all just as capable of making tea as the next person. Maybe she has a good rapport with the players and is worth more than minimum wage, maybe she does earn more than minimum wage, my point is her economic worth to the club is practically zero, while people like Salah are worth a fortune. So of course Salah gets paid millions while the tea lady picks up a tea lady's wage.

If the tea lady is working for a company that makes enough to pay some people a million times her wage, then that's a huge problem. That is not a just and fair employment relationship. The fact that laws allow for that situation is obscenely problematic, IMO.

I really don't get this. Why should Liverpool pay more for a tea lady than some football club nobody has heard of? Should they pay their security more too? And their stewards? And their groundsman? Once they start paying above market price for the services of their non-playing and non-coaching employees, they are at a disadvantage to their rivals. The more successful a football club becomes, the more it has to pay for wages compared to its less successful rivals, the less competitive the club becomes. This isn't a good economic model, in sport or in business. It disincentivises success.

It's different when it comes to the talent side of things... the players, the coaches, the scouts... these people have large economic worth because a good player, coach or scout can earn a football club many millions. So a club can pay millions for their services. But when it comes to jobs that most people can do, like the bar stewards in the stadium bar, you get market rate for your services, which is usually minimum wage. And most people are happy about that. If you think you're worth more, hold out for a better paid job. If you're overvaluing your economic worth, you'll be out of work for as long as it takes for you to lower your expectations.

Capitalism works. It's dirty but it works. Markets set value instead of emotions. And it's the most free economic system we have.

I'm not fine with looking at the biggest picture and seeing the world's wealth being funneled into fewer and fewer hands.

Well I'm going to go out on a limb and say the bulk of this is corruption, not capitalism. Punishing people for being rich is basically like firing wildly into the crowd. We should be punishing people for being corrupt, targeted shots.

You're claiming the problem doesn't exist.

I'm not, I'm simply saying the bigger problem is corruption. This hurts society more than people legally acquiring wealth. I'm arguing that those who do legally acquire wealth are actually of benefit to society because they pay more tax and create jobs.

Why does the tea lady not deserve her fair share of the company's profits?

She does get her fair share. It's her salary.

All of them play a role.

Yes they do. And roles have economic value. The tea lady's role is worth the minimum wage, while Salah's is worth millions. That's because anyone can make tea, but not anyone can be a world class footballer.

It's totally messed up of any one of them is earning less than 0.01%

To be clear I am speculating how much the tea lady earns at Liverpool, but Salah's wage is public knowledge and is £20m a year, that's before his private sponsorships and image rights etc. He'll be paying 40% tax though, so over £8m a year to the UK public purse thanks to an Egyptian footballer. The money he gets paid comes from all around the world, people paying to watch Premier League football, and sponsors. His presence is good for Liverpool, for the Premier League, for the UK state.

I could do the tea lady's job.

I bet the tea lady is busting her ass. Putting in the time. Knows more about tea than anyone else in the place. Can tell the temperature of water from across the room by the color of the vapor coming from the kettle. She's prob. fucking GOATED on the tea. You think Salah trust his tea from some back-alley tea monger?!?


So why doesn't the tea lady deserve her fair share?

Because even the best tea lady in the world doesn't have a significant economic value. Nobody is paying for a Sky TV subscription to watch her pour tea. Nike don't want to sponsor her. When she makes a particularly good cup of tea, the club does not score any league points or earn millions in prizes. Kids don't buy shirts and have her name printed on the back.

It's exactly envy. I'm glad you see that.

You shouldn't be envious. That's a you problem. If you're envious of what someone else has, then you can either work to buy it, or take it off them and break it so nobody has nice things. It almost seems childish when I put in in those terms, like throwing a tantrum and spoiling it for everyone.

I mean, I'm envious, I want nice things. But I don't begrudge people having nice things so long as they deserve it, and my definition of "deserve" is seemingly a lot looser than yours. Legally acquired wealth from good faith economic arrangements, I'm not prepare to say that's immoral even when the figures are obscene by my standards.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I'm not envious. I have more privilege than most.

Focus on the Marie Antoinette metaphor, but on the scale of the world instead of one nation.

That's what I'm afraid of. And that's my only point.


All this talk about tea ladies and football clubs and laws and corruption... that's just me trying to respond to your arguing.
I'm not blaming laws or corruption.
I'm not saying what the solution is.

I'm saying there's a big fucking problem and we have seen historic examples of what happens when the wealth gets over consolidated. And every study and trend I've seen about this subject says it's on a runaway. There are more millionaires every year. That's great in a vacuum. The fact that it's not because everyone's getting better off, but because some very small few have learned to game the system, whether legally or not, is the problem.

[The Bean Counter]

Largely a nonsensical, pure Tory mini-budget yesterday. Disgusting really

They gave the relatively well off some more money, but that immediately got inflated away with a weakening of Sterling. Which will leave the well off probably about flat, but those at the bottom end worse off.

NI change - wasn't needed now the change is in and people are used to it. Benefits the relatively well off who will just save more (no trickle down), rather than spend more (inflationary).
Stamp duty change - stop propping up the property market, most likely due to self interest
Bankers bonus - because the 200% cap wasnt enough, let's incentives reckless behaviour 2000-2008 style.
Corp tax reversal of planned increase - good idea
Creation of low tax zones - good idea

[Poopadoop]

Largely a nonsensical, pure Tory mini-budget yesterday. Disgusting really

They gave the relatively well off some more money, but that immediately got inflated away with a weakening of Sterling. Which will leave the well off probably about flat, but those at the bottom end worse off.

NI change - wasn't needed now the change is in and people are used to it. Benefits the relatively well off who will just save more (no trickle down), rather than spend more (inflationary).
Stamp duty change - stop propping up the property market, most likely due to self interest
Bankers bonus - because the 200% cap wasnt enough, let's incentives reckless behaviour 2000-2008 style.
Corp tax reversal of planned increase - good idea
Creation of low tax zones - good idea

Pure trickle-up economics designed to make their rich mates richer. Pound and bond market both tanked - basically proving the markets know it's a horrible budget for the country as a whole.

I suspect the Tories have realised they're doomed at the next election and have given up on winning it, but instead are just trying to plunder the country as much as they can while they still can.

[OngBonga]

They gave the relatively well off some more money

A lot of people using the word "handout" to describe a government taking money off you and then giving you some of it back. Hilarious really.

The weakening of the Sterling is only a problem if you rely on imports. How many dollars the pound is worth doesn't matter when I buy British cheese. I'll worry about the pound if it keeps falling but a kneejerk market reaction isn't something I'm concerned about.

who will just save more...

If the rich save more, that means the banks can lend more, which means a stimulated economy. And given inflation is well above interest rates, there's absolutely no incentive to save anyway. Better to spend or invest, which is better for stimulating the economy. But if they choose to save, that's still not bad for the economy. That money doesn't do nothing. It's lent to businesses and people.

Rich people are not bad for the economy. They might be bad for social cohesion, but like mojo freely admits, that's because of envy. People do not react to this emotion in the way they should. Instead of being incentivised and motivated they are disincentivised and demotivated. If people reacted positively to envy then capitalism would be perfect. But it's easier to drag other people down than it is to raise your own standards.

[OngBonga]

It's hilarious that the poorest person here is the most right wing.

[Poopadoop]

The weakening of the Sterling is only a problem if you rely on imports. How many dollars the pound is worth doesn't matter when I buy British cheese.

That'd be great if the nation's economy revolved around where the cheese you eat comes from. But, the country as a whole has a huge trade deficit. Weaker pound = higher inflation.

I'll worry about the pound if it keeps falling but a kneejerk market reaction isn't something I'm concerned about.

When the pound starts tanking while the chancellor is talking, that surely is not a good sign.

If the rich save more, that means the banks can lend more, which means a stimulated economy.

Sorry, what? You think rich people put their extra money in a Natwest savings account?

And given inflation is well above interest rates, there's absolutely no incentive to save anyway. Better to spend or invest, which is better for stimulating the economy. But if they choose to save, that's still not bad for the economy. That money doesn't do nothing. It's lent to businesses and people.

What if they invest in offshore banks (as they do). Or buy more shares in BP? How does that stimulate the economy?

Also, your idea that the banks are relying on people to invest in the banks to have money to lend is very 1800s. That's not how banks work. They're basically just moving numbers around in an excel sheet.

Rich people are not bad for the economy.

Depends what they do with the money they can't spend. I doubt Jeff Bezos is going around the high street buying things that help stimulate the economy.

Great to see you're still buying into the debunked "trickle-down" theory though, even though it's been proven not to work.

[Poopadoop]

It's hilarious that the poorest person here is the most right wing.

It's less hilarious that a substantial portion of the poorest people have been convinced to vote Tory, like that's somehow going to improve their lot.

Maybe they don't understand how gov't budgest affect their finances. Maybe they really think it's people in dinghies who are screwing them over, instead of the gov't.

[Poopadoop]

The UK's total trade deficit for goods and services, excluding precious metals, widened by £2.0 billion to £27.9 billion in Quarter 2 2022, which is the largest on record.

Just one of the problems with inflation is that it pushes up mortgage rates. A mtg rate going from 2% to 7% is going to take a lot of money out of the economy. But hey, at least the bankers will get richer. Then all we have to do is stand outside their office windows and wait for that money to trickle-down on us.

[OngBonga]

Sorry, what? You think rich people put their extra money in a Natwest savings account?

Well if you're hinting at offshore banking then we're moving into the murky world of tax evasion, a form of corruption. f rich people are making legal savings and investments, that capital isn't sitting there doing nothing. If it's being lent to Swiss businesses, well ok then, we have money coming in from around the world, some is obviously going to leave. If we want to avoid money being invested in Switzerland or the Cayman Islands, we need better tax incentives.

Or buy more shares in BP? How does that stimulate the economy?

Well BP might be a dirty energy company but they are a major British company that contributes to the economy. They pay massive tax, create jobs and access resources. Without them we'd be buying more Russian gas. So people who invest in BP are doing you a solid.

Also, your idea that the banks are relying on people to invest in the banks to have money to lend is very 1800s. That's not how banks work. They're basically just moving numbers around in an excel sheet.

I'm not sure if you're right here or not, but the more a bank has in capital the more money it can lend. As I understand it, they can lend 10x their capital. They print money, then when the loan is repaid they basically burn money, having created a profit. Massively simplified and maybe wrong. I don't keep up to date with the nuances of modern banking.

Depends what they do with the money they can't spend.

More often than not it gets loaned. Nobody keeps billions stuffed under the mattress.

[OngBonga]

It's less hilarious that a substantial portion of the poorest people have been convinced to vote Tory, like that's somehow going to improve their lot.

People have more faith in capitalism than socialism. Even poor people. That really is all it boils down to.

[MadMojoMonkey]

It's hilarious that the poorest person here is the most right wing.

The nice thing is that you're the only mostly right-wing thinker I know who actually makes decent arguments and has a sense of bigger picture stuff than the shit-slinging that happens in the media.

We may not agree on politics, much, but we agree on what counts for good thinking... and that's more important to me.

[MadMojoMonkey]

People have more faith in capitalism than socialism. Even poor people. That really is all it boils down to.

I think neither can do all that it needs to do on economies of the scales we have today. It takes a mixture of both, IMO.

Capitalism is great for incentivizing innovation and rewarding personal efforts with personal gains.
But it isn't perfect. It relies on everyone being able to be a perfect negotiator for their worth to a greater society / company.
That's unreasonable, and people are taken advantage of.
Mostly, that's not a big enough problem to try to solve. It's not exactly fair, but it could be way less fair, and we're not promised fairness in life... we just like it and want it for ourselves.

But there are problems. Mental health, physical health, anti-social tendencies that are the result of the society not accepting all people, and not the fault of the people who are just people. Societies tend to build a myopic view of what is the range of "normal" human behaviors. They always get it wrong. They always exclude people. Whether it's women, or gays, or trans, or retarded or amputees.... it doesn't work for everyone.

And I see that socialistic programs within a greater capitalistic system are valuable to the greater society. Societies don't serve everyone equally. To the extent that we are shooting ourselves in the foot by ignoring that potential wealth of innovation and talent ... that's a problem. We can be better.

It's not about giving handouts to "bad" people. It's about recognizing that those are good people whom our society has shat upon.

The balance between capitalism and socialism is worth discussing. A moving line that we can argue about where it belongs.
But, to me, it definitely belongs somewhere.

[Poopadoop]

To me it's about creating a happier, more equitable society. Pure capitalism does the opposite. Pure socialism stifles initiative, which makes everyone poorer. There's a happy medium in there somewhere, and tilting too far one way or another doesn't work.

[OngBonga]

I think neither can do all that it needs to do on economies of the scales we have today. It takes a mixture of both, IMO.

I agree, but I prefer to leave the economy at the mercy of the markets where possible. Natural monopolies, natural resources and infrastructure, energy, health, education, water, things that are essential for a healthy society, these should be state managed. This is good for capitalism because the population is healthier and better educated. So strong national governance and management of these sectors is something I approve of.

But capping wealth? That's what we were talking about originally, right? That's basically no different to forcing someone to either retire or work for free when they hit a certain threshold. Like, imagine telling the Beatles that they can't earn any more money on the songs they wrote. Sorry Paul you're rich enough, even if you write new material you can't sell it, you have to give it away for nothing.

It relies on everyone being able to be a perfect negotiator for their worth to a greater society / company.That's unreasonable, and people are taken advantage of.

I get what you're saying here but most low income people are worth what the market decides, not what the employer or employee decides. The dude selling you a Big Mac is getting paid the same as the girl selling you a Whopper. And there's good reason for this. If Maccies paid more than Burger King, nobody would want to work for Burger King. They're competing with each other not just for customers but for labour too.

If you have a qualification, skill or talent then yes you're probably going to negotiate your salary. Do your research, be honest with yourself about your skill and experience level, understand your true economic value to the company, appreciate they have to make a profit, and negotiate. Reaching a mutual agreement is an essential life skill in a civilised world. If you're not very good at this then yes, people will take advantage of you. That's just human nature. It's animal nature. We're all born selfish. We have to learn not to be. And when push comes to shove, we nearly always put ourselves and our loved ones before people we don't care about. I don't see how this changes whatever system we employ. We're just animals, constantly trying to be nice to each other.

But there are problems. Mental health, physical health, anti-social tendencies that are the result of the society not accepting all people

These are social problems, not economic problems.

The balance between capitalism and socialism is worth discussing.

Let competition and market forces thrive where they can. It's really that simple. Regulation only where necessary.

The government provides essential services for free (tax funded) at a competent level, private operators can compete in non-monopoly sectors if they can provide a rival service and make a profit. Take health in the UK. We have the NHS which is paid for through National Insurance (a form of income tax). Wealthy people are much more likely to use private health services if they need medical care, because waiting times will be much shorter, and the level of care will likely be higher, and they can afford it. But this wealthy person still paid tax, they have still paid for the NHS care they are declining, they've even paid more than average. And by not using the NHS, they are helping to relieve pressure on the public healthy system. So they're paying for a service they're not using, and reducing waiting times for the public. This is good, right?

You could just say "well the NHS should offer good enough care that private companies can't compete with them" but that's just fantasy. Private facilities can pay doctors more, which means they can employ the best doctors. It would be nice if all doctors were equally brilliant but they are not. It would be nice if everyone could be given the best possible care, but society cannot afford this. The best care is often the most expensive, because they are cutting edge technologies and specially trained physios, doctors and surgeons. You can guarantee that when Salah twists his ankle he gets the best care for twisted ankles that it's possible to get. You and I wouldn't, in fact we'd probably just rest until it's better. Should we have world class twisted ankle treatment? Does that make economic sense to burden that care on the taxpayer? What about if the world class treatment is costing the taxpayer millions when it could have cost tens of thousands for inferior care?

Something has to give somewhere. We're not all equal, and we never will be all equal. People have an economic value based on their qualifications, skills, experience, intelligence, motivation, ambition, application, personality, appearance, there are tons of factors, some fair and some unfair, that impact on our economic value. You can choose to play the game, cry about it, try to change it, or just refuse to play. But is the game you want to play instead really any better?

[MadMojoMonkey]

I haven't proposed a single solution, and you're going on and on about how bad all the solutions are.

So what?

We agree there's a problem, but you're just... "Oh, well... let it all burn and repeat itself in a century or so, it's the only fair way to deal with people being people" ..?

Is it not a function of government to provide stability?

[OngBonga]

What? No. My solution is to stop being envious of what other people have and get on with your life. Not you personally, anyone who thinks it's not fair that they don't have the nice things their peers have. I also want to punish corruption.

That isn't a real solution because it's not going to happen. But it's a better idea that what poop has suggested, which is to confiscate castles. That's nerfing rich people, punishing them for success or privilege, on the basis that they don't deserve their success or privilege. Don't deserve it by whose definition? Not the objective legal definition. A person's subjective opinion.

There are no solutions because humans are assholes. The best solution for me, economically, is free markets. That at least gives everyone a chance to realise their economic worth. Maybe not an equal chance, but life isn't fair and isn't ever going to be fair.

I don't want to let everything burn then rinse and repeat in a century. I don't understand how you reach that conclusion. In a century I would hope that humans aren't so shit. I have hope, I mean we've come a long way in the last 100 years, both technologically and socially.

[OngBonga]

Is it not a function of government to provide stability?

What does this even mean? Stability in what context? Economic stability? That's not in the total control of a government. Social stability? Law attempts to provide that, and it's the responsibility of the population.

Compared to 100 years ago, we most certainly do have stability. Things are better.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Your solution to just have people stop being envious is clearly problematic. People are people. An individual can change, but people, as a group, haven't changed in hundreds of thousands of years. Our cultures have changed dramatically, but who we are as a species has not. People are envious. It's in the Bible that envy is bad, mmmkay.
As much as yes, that's the best solution I've heard, it also hits the yes, that's the least practical solution I've heard.
And saying we hope for the impossible as a solution is no solution. It's the do-nothing "let it all burn" scenario.

IDK what poop said, and I don't know where the line should be, but the increased lack of control over the whole Marie Antoinette path seems dire.

IDK. I'm stuck in a loop. All solutions are bad, but no solution is worse. My ideas all suck. Your ideas all suck.
You're right. People are assholes... I'm just trying to figure out how to stop the assholes from burning it all down again.
That's all I have left in this debate.

[MadMojoMonkey]

What does this even mean? Stability in what context? Economic stability? That's not in the total control of a government. Social stability? Law attempts to provide that, and it's the responsibility of the population.

Compared to 100 years ago, we most certainly do have stability. Things are better.

The single purpose of any entity is self-preservation.
A government is preserved on the lack of revolt by its citizens / military.

Providing economic stability, social stability, whatever stability is of primary importance to any healthy gov't.

If the laws are failing to do this... then why shout that what is legal is good or right?
Just because something is a law that doesn't make it a good law.
Maybe being in the US makes that more clear to me than others, but ... People don't write laws to control their own behavior. They write laws to control others. That's a flawed premise and will produce problems. I'm just saying that letting the wealthy create the laws is putting us in a situation where the wealthy are unregulated at acquiring more and more wealth.

That's a problem because the laws are wrong.
QED

[OngBonga]

Your solution to just have people stop being envious is clearly problematic.

Sure it is, just like everyone else's solution. Ultimately we all want the same thing... for people to be better. We're just imagining different ways of doing this when in reality nobody has a viable solution.

Sure, most of us suffer from envy at some point in our life, it is indeed human nature. But if your response to this emotion is to want other people to have less, rather then you to have more, if that's the only way for you to compete with others, then you're the one with the problem.

I'm saying "you" in the general sense, not you personally. I don't think you have a problem with envy. I don't think poop does either. I think we just have different ideas about what the actual problem is. I don't see rich people as the problem. I think that's a rather naive and unhelpful way of looking at it. Not that my ideas are any less naive, or any more helpful. You're right, simply saying "don't be envious" is not cutting it. But it seems better than saying "don't be too successful".

Just because something is a law that doesn't make it a good law.

I absolutely agree. But we can't all live by our own rules. Due to human nature, law is essential for a civilised society. Without it we don't have fair trials, we have vigilantes and witch hunts, we have the strong dominating the weak.

Of course law should be as close to perfect as we can make it. It's very far from perfect. It is used to oppress and to control. This isn't its intended purpose. Social stability is the intended purpose. So yes, I agree that laws need to change to make society better.

But... if someone is exploiting legal means to make money, then whether you think it's moral or not is irrelevant. It's legal. If we want a civilised society, then people need to live by the law, by society's morals, not their own morals.

[OngBonga]

Italy looks fun right now. Apparently they've just elected the most right-wing government since Mussolini, which is weird since Mussolini was a hardcore left wing socialist. Like Hitler.

The idea that fascism is right wing is ludicrous.

Here's the google definition of fascism...

A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, a capitalist economy subject to stringent governmental controls, violent suppression of the opposition, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

"...a capitalist economy subject to stringent governmental controls..."

This is "state capitalism". It's capitalism only by name.

State capitalism is an economic system in which the state undertakes business and commercial (i.e. for-profit) economic activity and where the means of production are nationalized as state-owned enterprises

This is basically my ideology when it comes to essential infrastructure and national resources. And it's not real capitalism, it's much closer to communism. It is removing competition, innovation and incentive. Key aspects of capitalism. And it is regulation, state ownership and control, things one doesn't normally associate with capitalism.

Mussolini's fascism was certainly not right wing. idk about Meloni, time will tell. She's a nationalist, anti-immigration, and pro-family, which doesn't tell me much. Let's see how Italian economics shapes up in the coming years.

[OngBonga]

I mean she seems Conservative in her social views - she opposes same-sex marriage, abortion and euthanasia, there's likely a religious affiliation (Catholic I guess), she doesn't seem particularly left wing to me. But if her socioeconomic policies shape up like Mussolini's, well that's not right wing.

She's one hell of an orator, I'll give her that. So was Hitler though, so it's not really something to like her for.

[oskar]

Oh yes, famous reactionary left wing ideals like: a women's role is child bearing, worshipping god and cooking dinner, hyper nationalism, that the existence of lgbtq people is destroying society, leaving the currency union (literally wanted the lira back like wtf...) stopping all immigration, and saying Mussolinin wanted nothing but the best for Italy... That's the thing about leftoids: they can't stop talking about how great Mussolini was.

[oskar]

I think that speech of her's that's circulating social media right now isn't showing a wolf in sheep's clothing. It is core fascism. You can say: fascism is total government control of industry... but that's never how it starts, that's what happens when the war machine kicks into full gear. With Mussolini and Hitler it was irrational, mythical thinking. A total anti-science stance. Literally rejecting most science as "jew science." and having a charismatic talker who only appeals to emotion. A complete abandonment of critical thinking.

And her speech is full of it: 'there's some dark force represented in transgender people who are actively working towards destroying the christian family.' She says: she cannot call herself a mother anymore. She cannot call herself a woman. Peak persecution complex stuff. What is the actual reality? People who identify as a gender would like to live a normal life as a person of the gender they identify as. What's the reaction? I cAn'T cAlL MysElF a WoMen anYmOrE! *flips table*

[oskar]

btw I've noticed there's a firesale on the gbp right now... what's happening?

[MadMojoMonkey]

We're just imagining different ways of doing this when in reality nobody has a viable solution.

As long as we agree the world is fucked up and people are assholes and neither of us can fix it.

[OngBonga]

a women's role is child bearing, worshipping god and cooking dinner, hyper nationalism, that the existence of lgbtq people is destroying society

It's funny really because I'm someone who is very much economically right wing, but don't believe in any of this crap. These are conservative views and have little to do with economics.

and saying Mussolinin wanted nothing but the best for Italy...

I'm in no doubt he did want what he thought was best for Italy. He created what some observers called the cleanest piece of social machinery they had ever seen. Hardcore socialists are usually motivated by a sense of greater good, in the case of dictators that is usually accompanied with a huge fucking ego, a grand sense of self importance. Castro is an excellent example.

That's the thing about leftoids: they can't stop talking about how great Mussolini was.

This was true up until the point where Nazi war crimes were becoming clear. Leftists did think Mussolini was great, but backed the fuck off him when they realised he was on the wrong side of history.

She says: she cannot call herself a mother anymore.

She's appealing to conservatives by saying this. Trans people are not attacking women, but trans activists are. If you disagree, fair enough, but this view is shared by a lot of people, particularly conservative women. The trans rights movement comes across as extremely misogynistic. And that's because it is. We've got activists demanding lesbians date women with cocks, and calling them bigots if they don't. We've got people using "suck my trans cock" as a slogan. That's where we're at. Traditional feminists are now considered bad people, even labelled as "radical" (the R in TERF), which is extremely ironic since feminism is no longer radical, it's the trans activists who are radical.

People who identify as a gender would like to live a normal life as a person of the gender they identify as.

It's not just about identity. Nobody really cares what someone identifies as. Well, maybe Meloni does, idk, but I certainly don't. Trans people aren't the problem. Trans activists are. I can't think of a more counterproductive group of activists in history. With their behaviour and their attitude, they have done a great deal more damage to trans people than good. People associate trans people with the activists. That really hurts the image of trans people, which in turn creates more social turmoil for them, not less.

If the trans activists weren't going after women's rights, there wouldn't be a problem.

[Poopadoop]

btw I've noticed there's a firesale on the gbp right now... what's happening?

Our soon-to-be shortest ever in tenure PM The Brains Truss and her treasurer Kwazy Kwarteng decided they can't possibly win the next election, so they're going to give as much of the UK's wealth as they can to their rich mates while they still have power.

To effect this plan, they announced massive borrowing and tax cuts at a time when inflation is rising because their way to combat inflation is to pump a lot more money into the economy.

The twist is that the Bank of England sets the interest rates, and is independent of gov't. They've been raising rates to combat inflation, and now the gov't has thrown out a budget that will do the exact opposite. It's like a giant tug-of-war going on between crazy and not-crazy people. At this rate, we're going to end up with very high infation and very high interest rates.

The markets don't seem to think this is a good fiscal plan for some reason, so the £ is tanking.

I never thought I'd say this, but I wish Boris Johnson was still PM. He didn't give a shit, but Truss seems to be actively destroying the economy.

[Poopadoop]

Basically, all the experts told Truss and Kwarteng "Don't do this, you'll crash the economy," and they did it anyways. It's quite incredible really.

https://twitter.com/Haggis_UK/status...86705659412480