So much time wasted talking about neoliberals, no interest in dealing with the merits or problems of what they say.
should we do the same for all manner of lefty organisations, do they too have nothing interesting to tell us?
Re: EXIT NEGOTIATIONS
So much time wasted talking about neoliberals, no interest in dealing with the merits or problems of what they say.
should we do the same for all manner of lefty organisations, do they too have nothing interesting to tell us?
Furunculus Maneuver: Adopt a highly logical position on a controversial subject where you cannot disagree with the merits of the proposal, only disagree with an opinion based on fundamental values. - Beskar
Re: EXIT NEGOTIATIONS
There is a book about this subject I really enjoyed called "What Money Can't Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets" by Michael Sandel.Originally Posted by Husar
He discusses multiple examples of market thinking being introduced further into the public sphere, much to the detriment of the public psyche.
One key example being the use of market incentives to encourage parents at a day care to arrive on time and not keep the workers waiting for an extra 1-2 hours past closing time. The incentive was to implement a fine of X dollars to any parents who arrive more than 10 minutes late. What ends up happening is an increase in absent parents. The explanation Michael gives for this example and the others is that market incentives have undermined a sense of community by conflating wealth with morality. Fewer parents arrived late when the only punishment was a sense of shame for not attending to their child at the agreed pick up time. Once the day care introduced the fine, parents could pay the fine and feel that they compensated the day care for their tardiness. And if they could afford to keep paying the fine, they would keep coming in late.
Another example that most people would consider trivial, but which resonates with me for some reason is the nature of sports stadiums. Specifically, two items:
1. Introduction of secluded skyboxes
2. Naming rights
With the introduction of secluded skyboxes in the later 20th century, sports stadiums no longer sat rich and poor alike in common seats. Now, there was a clear class divide that only serves to generate two entirely separate realities between the haves and have-nots. The removal of communal experience in favor of market principles (more money = better experience) has likely eroded the sense of citizenship between classes.
Also, with the naming rights issue we see the identity of the team itself put on the market for the highest bidder. Cities are very loyal to their teams and by normalizing this relationship we only serve to instill in the public a sense of identity transience since we cannot find common ground even in our sports institutions. Now, it would ignorant to say that naming stadiums after companies has not been a thing since the very beginning, (e.g. Wrigley Field). But stadiums are now either revising their names on a twenty year contractual basis or they are playing off the citizens psyche to exort tax payer money for new stadiums with higher paying naming rights.
Running joke in Chicago is that the Willis Tower is pronounced "Sears". You get the point. Anyway, I enjoyed the book and I feel it highlights issues with neoliberal mindset of making everything under the sun a market.
Re: EXIT NEGOTIATIONS
Somehow, every time I prove you wrong, you suddenly don't like the direction the discussion is taking and propose we discuss something else.
But if you really want, does your philosophy have an inherent value of a human life? And if yes, what is it? What should be the minimum standard for humans in your ideal community and how would it be realized?
"Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu
Re: EXIT NEGOTIATIONS
Prove me wrong...?
Rofl. When? How?
You get to post an entertaining little ditty of a web infographic, five minutes of voice over and pastel cartoons, and I provide sixty+ pages of economic tract.
And you proved ME wrong!
This has been a waste of oxygen since the 16th of June.
Last edited by Furunculus; 07-04-2018 at 21:40.
Furunculus Maneuver: Adopt a highly logical position on a controversial subject where you cannot disagree with the merits of the proposal, only disagree with an opinion based on fundamental values. - Beskar
Re: EXIT NEGOTIATIONS
How do you reject it in practice? Do you reject it personally, but accept it when allies advance it?
Let's say I reject the killing of political opponents in theory, but in practice support the establishment of a party secret police... that just happen to do forced disappearances. Ah well, maybe they're not really killing those people?
You point out that ideologies may repeatedly overlap in places while remaining distinct, but again the question is not where do they overlap, but where don't they overlap: where would you not accept them overlapping, as a specific political question? How can one claim to oppose some government or market power while acquiescing to them in the presence of alternatives.
It's OK if you don't wish to deal with the topic, but it is a valid one.
Why do you care so much about not being labeled a neoliberal?
First person to post Das Kapital wins the thread!
Anyway, here's a good time to repost my summary of the essay on the convergence of neoliberal and Nazi fascist governance structure.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...post2053778878
Vitiate Man.
History repeats the old conceits
The glib replies, the same defeats
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Re: EXIT NEGOTIATIONS
I didn't prove the paper wrong, but some other things you said in the discussion.
The paper is just vague, it even struggles to define the welfare it is talking about and still offers an ideal taxation level to maximize said welfare. The problem is that this is neither here nor there as long as the welfare that is supposedly maximized is not really defined.
I've skimmed over various parts and read others in detail, but I'm none the wiser about how the paper would prove anything. Most of it appears to be argumentation about why the authors are right about assuming this or that and one would have to check dozens of other sources to actually verify that. So yeah, I can't prove your paper wrong because I'm unwilling to spend dozens of hours researching, but I'm also not sure your paper proves anything in the first place.
In addition, a search for the word "automation" gets not a single result, so the paper analyzes data all the way back to the 1970s and proposes solutions without taking into account any near-future changes such as automation. What use are economic growth and lower taxes if automation puts millions of people out of work?
Arguments like this one are also far from clear:
The supply of capital can not only be made less elastic, e.g. through treaties that require capital income to be taxed in many countries, there are also still lots of disadvantages to not investing at all, such as inflation reducing the capital. And the last argument about outputs already being taxed is also highly debatable since the outputs can be taxed less if the inputs are taxed more. Plus, capital income is not an input, it's an output of the same processes that prosduce the other output. The investment is an input, but the reuturn on investment, from which you get the capital income, is an output.
The whole conclusion of the study appears to depend on whether you agree with all things the authors see as givens, which are all derived from the libertarian world view and the assumption that the current capitalist model is entirely future-proof and the economy can just grow and grow and grow endlessly on a planet that isn't endless.
"Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu
Re: EXIT NEGOTIATIONS
How much of capitalism as we currently conceive, depends on assumptions currently proving to be false?
It is difficult in my opinion to hold too much faith in the status quo of mixed economies based on three factors:
1. The inability of wall street to learn from its mistakes. Much as governments have grown in their ability to annihilate each other, our economic institutions also have the ability to destabilize the entire world based on bad practices in one sector. 2008 housing crisis is nothing compared to a theoretical slow down of the Chinese market from 6-7% to 2-3%. With the recent repeal of most of Dodd Frank, it seems old practices are still in demand.
2. Related to point one, the ability of governments to regulate bad behavior in free markets seems more limited as both the complexity and the resistance of the economic institutions grow. Again, see the failure of Dodd frank to last beyond one administration.
3. Developed nations are continuing a trend of downward population growth. Several states are in the negative, many more are strateling the line, propped up barely by immigration. What does this say about how we view the metric of growth when we also recognize the impossibility of several billion people living 1st world standards and encourage developing nations to adhere to the above trend?
Related to point three, the only way out of this conflict seems to be faith that while we live in a limited resource environment, productivity per person is boundless (doubtful). If this was magically the case, we are still on the wrong path since we have seen a decoupling of productivity and real income since the 1970s.
Do we need a new paradigm beyond free markets for the mid 21st century?
Last edited by a completely inoffensive name; 07-05-2018 at 01:54.
Re: EXIT NEGOTIATIONS
Mistake: our markets are not "free". We have state-subsidized, government-mandated markets.
1. De-marketize society.
So we need something other than commercial relations as a basis for society. In pre-modern times, it was pure subsistence, religion, violence, and autocratic whim. The 20th century saw attempts at world-historical projects that were too destructive for our prospect.
2. The only future for humanity that isn't a horror-show or outright AI posthumanity (far likelier biological than computational) is a subsistence economy, but with luxurious subsistence as a minimum standard, on the basis of a shared core value in mutual altruism.
Housing, food, healthcare, education, etc. The primary goal of politics becomes assuring the provision of the minimum standard, and expanding it continuously.
3. Automate as much as possible, but leave technological development, especially in biotech like genetic engineering, heavily restricted according to ethical standards like the precautionary principle.
All utopian ideologies depend on shared humanity. Allowing the advent of categorical cleavage in beings not only wrecks that, it obviates 5,000 years of history and philosophy utterly and forever. Everything we have ever done as a species becomes a sick joke.
4. Probably do something about population... There exists a gap between population growth and desired childmaking outcomes, which suggests widespread prosperous subsistence would lead to a baby boom.
????
5. Collectivize childrearing.
5. Everyone has the moral agency to choose their own way of life.
5. Can't we just be pessimists and fatalists? I want to watch my vitreous jelly sucked out by a cyberpunk abomination.
Vitiate Man.
History repeats the old conceits
The glib replies, the same defeats
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Re: EXIT NEGOTIATIONS
I am not sure of the direction you are taking. But I don't necessarily see anything so drastic.
Personally, I think that we need to go back to the philosophy of Locke and other's who built the groundwork of private property and revisit it in the context of today's state. We should strive more towards the idea that the property belongs to those who put effort or improve upon the land.
What sort of society do we have if we view our relationship through the lens of conditional ownership based around utilization of the land?
Most of society can move on as it is currently because for the most part companies utilize land for the purpose of generating value.
I find there to be something wrong about the inability of cities to clamp down on ghost apartments used by the wealthy overseas to dump money which only serve to remove supply and drive up prices with no value added.
Or how cities must go through a lengthy process just to buy out land that is sitting unused by a stubborn owner that could be used for public transit or a revitalization process.
This isn't to say I want a society where the government owns all of the land and simply hands it out by its corruptible criteria of merit. But the government should have a more active role in remediating rent seeking activities and rewarding those who put forth plans to provide actual value.
And perhaps when it is all said and done a free-ish market like what we have today is the best way to generate wealth. But if that is the case then we are in trouble because more and more the perception of the average citizen like me is that 21st C capitalism is an exercise in manipulating supply and applying magical formulas to optimize self destructive bets and counter bets on each others businesses in order to generate wealth.
EDIT: In my dream society, California would have passed SB827 years ago. We know we need more housing, the land is being mismanaged by local politicians held hostage by NIMBYs. This is clear case of what the people need, and the deference to the local communities has gone beyond the pale.
Last edited by a completely inoffensive name; 07-05-2018 at 07:27.
Re: EXIT NEGOTIATIONS
Follow up about the cities buying out land. I understand there is a process of eminent domain for certain public projects, but I am more frustrated over situations like this.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/l...htmlstory.html
Key point:
"One way way out of the impasse could arise from Kleinman’s own disengagement.
Los Angeles County Treasurer and Tax Collector records show that 2015-16 property taxes on his properties are in default and the first installment on this year’s taxes of $18,251.84 has not been paid. If the default is not cleared by July 1, 2019, the tax collector would initiate a process to sell the properties within four years."
So if he wasn't in default, that land would remain a patch work of abandoned, decrepit buildings for homeless people until death? Also, why does it take 3 years to clear a default payment and then another 4 to sell off the property? A child could go through middle and high school before a shovel even touches the ground.
Re: EXIT NEGOTIATIONS
In capitalism, these people are the capitalists. And the more we progress, the more everything depends on them and their capital.
We might also want to be careful not to get too far away from the Brexit discussion here. Perhaps a mod could open a new topic about the end state of capitalism?
As for the Free Market, if you think it rules supreme, let's take the following example:
You're the consumer, who makes an informed decision to buy a shampoo, as the free market principles dictate:
Shampoo A: http://mostlysunnyblog.com/wp-conten...ngredients.jpg
Shampoo B: https://i.stack.imgur.com/tWJ66.jpg
Now answer the following questions in a detailed way:
- Which shampoo is better for your skin and why?
- Which shampoo is less harmful to the environment and why?
- What criteria do you apply when you buy Shampoo?
- Why do you have these criteria and how exactly do they maximize your welfare?
- How do you know that your decision was best and benefits the market, and in extension everyone?
I mean, obviously all this should be easy to explain since the market always makes the best product win through the customer choice, no?
"Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu
Re: EXIT NEGOTIATIONS
First, let me say I positively squint at the use of eminent domain for the interests of private developers. If there's a housing crisis (which there is, buddy, real estate interests in Albany), then have the city or the state fund, or preferably build, co-living apartments (less trendily known as communal apartments).
I don't see what the special focus on residential land usage is, or how its reform alone contributes to an ideal society. It seems like something that follows from the parameters of the larger frame. Right now, that is rewarding mass speculation (financial rent) and luxury, high-rise, and McMansion development. Why do NIMBYs exist? Is it because they are rich and crotchety? Upper middle-class and anxious about property values? (Only activists have cared much about the concerns of lower-class NIMBYs.) If you don't have to worry about wealth or property values or basic survival, then these concerns can be dminished.
You can only fruitfully speculate on the new shape of these things once you know how the systemic parameters determine where, how, and why people live or go to live, work, and operate in the first place. Right now, almost all movement between locales is for retirement or in pursuit of economic opportunities, largely toward legacy urban centers that arose for all the reasons towns and cities arose. A degree of re-ruralization with infrastructure is one possibility.
A market like we have today is unsustainable, as you should be aware. Markets are indeed highly efficient - at concentrating wealth and power. Our essential and recurring problem is such concentrations of wealth and power. If you don't endeavour to flatten society of wealth and power, you accept that these crises will recur cyclically until such time as humans are replaced as labor capital, civilization is disintegrated technologically or ecologically, or most human energy is bent toward colonizing other worlds.
Unfortunately, we also need to retain enough of our consumption to keep "living standards" high, or reform becomes politically untenable. Therefore, one of the biggest challenges:
1. Match modern living standards and consumption with ecological sustainability*
2. Modern life depends on the extractive industries, which depend on the extreme poverty and suffering of many millions of laborers - eliminate this exploitation, or equality is a lie.
*This isn't to say that we need to preserve this saturated wonderland of conveniences and goodies, which did not exist before the 1990s. The problem is more soluble if you take "modern" as anything post-war, though transport and communication capabilities can't be allowed to degrade.
Vitiate Man.
History repeats the old conceits
The glib replies, the same defeats
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Re: EXIT NEGOTIATIONS
I don't. It appears to be only your fetish.
Furunculus Maneuver: Adopt a highly logical position on a controversial subject where you cannot disagree with the merits of the proposal, only disagree with an opinion based on fundamental values. - Beskar
Re: EXIT NEGOTIATIONS
Significant political change generally comes about when there has been a significant problem or less frequently when there's those who believe in what they're doing - beyond the usual desire to enrich themselves.
Historically, the cycle of wealth was auto-corrected due to invasions or revolutions. It was physically stolen by the victors and generally a lot of it went missing. Now since most wealth is electronic it moves with a speed no single country can match - and there's generally one that's happy to take a cut for shielding it all.
As to sustainability, i rarely hear anyone who concludes with the phrase "thus I need to travel less / have less holidays" etc etc. Always others need to do more; when I knew several people who had chronic illnesses their view was very much redistribution of wealth... to people like themselves, not those earning less than a dollar a day.
Equality is a lie. Always was, always will be. In all placental mammals there is not equality. There is the odd commune here or there, but they indirectly rely massively on the developed world around them for tools, the very foods they eat and security. They never seem to be set up in the middle of the Sahel. Societies beyond subsistence (where everyone is living on the edge) is increasingly unfair. And societies that try to create fairness (as they see it) generally mean others get rich providing the services that are not officially allowed.
But next time... It might all be different.
An enemy that wishes to die for their country is the best sort to face - you both have the same aim in mind.
Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings.
"If you can't trust the local kleptocrat whom you installed by force and prop up with billions of annual dollars, who can you trust?" Lemur
If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain.
The best argument against democracy is a five minute talk with the average voter. Winston Churchill
Re: EXIT NEGOTIATIONS
But what is wrong with aspiring towards equality of opportunity? That is what is meant by "Libraries gave us power". That is what was intended by things such as Sure Start, that aimed to provide for individuals at the stage where cost most efficiently translates into later opportunity. Socialism doesn't have to only mean redistribution of wealth at the point of use. Something the early C20 socialists were big on, and ironically Blair and Brown were also big on, is giving people the chance to better themselves through their own effort, by providing opportunity that would normally only be available to the already wealthy.Significant political change generally comes about when there has been a significant problem or less frequently when there's those who believe in what they're doing - beyond the usual desire to enrich themselves.
Historically, the cycle of wealth was auto-corrected due to invasions or revolutions. It was physically stolen by the victors and generally a lot of it went missing. Now since most wealth is electronic it moves with a speed no single country can match - and there's generally one that's happy to take a cut for shielding it all.
As to sustainability, i rarely hear anyone who concludes with the phrase "thus I need to travel less / have less holidays" etc etc. Always others need to do more; when I knew several people who had chronic illnesses their view was very much redistribution of wealth... to people like themselves, not those earning less than a dollar a day.
Equality is a lie. Always was, always will be. In all placental mammals there is not equality. There is the odd commune here or there, but they indirectly rely massively on the developed world around them for tools, the very foods they eat and security. They never seem to be set up in the middle of the Sahel. Societies beyond subsistence (where everyone is living on the edge) is increasingly unfair. And societies that try to create fairness (as they see it) generally mean others get rich providing the services that are not officially allowed.
But next time... It might all be different.
Redirecting this towards the thread topic: there are opportunities in Brexit, but only for those who already have. Once the economy properly declines, there will be a chance for those with ready capital to buy up and own ever bigger chunks of the existing economy, while those who are trapped by their inability to escape the rent circle can only watch. In 1990s Russia this led to the rise of the oligarchs. 2020s UK may not be as free of law as Russia was, but the gap between rich and poor will still similarly increase, through the above mechanism. One can already see the leading Brexiteers preparing for it.
Re: EXIT NEGOTIATIONS
Have you considered attending church? They are big on aspiration as well. Stating that divergence between rich and poor is bad is the really easy thing. Stating you'd like a fix is just as easy. Now... HOW are you going to stop things being Bad? Many state those who voted for leave were sick of being ignored by all the tiers of government who mainly enrich themselves and their fellows both in role and also after leaving with some nice directorships. Brexit probably won't really fix this but then what, exactly, will?
Grammar schools? Some say they help, others say they help the middle and upper middle classes get ahead and that's about it. I'm a school governor at a Primary School. The teachers are told to throw money at the less able who are generally the poorer ones knowing that it makes sod all difference since there is no follow through in the evenings / weekends / holidays. What to do? Take all children to be looked after in a lovely egalitarian gulag until they're 18 which might equalise outcomes (for those who don't flee the country) at the cost of individual liberty.
Brexiteers aren't all moral angels? How dare they! But then pro-EU politicians all seem to have their little off shore funds which surely hurt no one. I imagine that those in Finance will descend as the do on any other event they can enrich themselves on - Soros made a fortune on the run on the pound. And after causing almost incalculable damage to the world with his amoral collecting of wealth he's doing some bits to give his soul a wash and brush up.
An enemy that wishes to die for their country is the best sort to face - you both have the same aim in mind.
Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings.
"If you can't trust the local kleptocrat whom you installed by force and prop up with billions of annual dollars, who can you trust?" Lemur
If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain.
The best argument against democracy is a five minute talk with the average voter. Winston Churchill
Re: EXIT NEGOTIATIONS
1. Thus far, every effort beyond the village/hunter-gatherer band level to 'eschew' markets has met with a poor end result.
2/3. I have read about the concept you evoke in points 2 and 3. In that rendering, a post-market society becomes doable because the use and reuse of resources, 3d printing and technology, etc. lowers the unit production cost of basic items to such a level that making subsistence items ceases to matter on a 'market' level. Though I still think a market would exist for other items/needs etc. for which higher unit costs persisted and/or for which tangible resources were somewhat irrelevant.
4. Thus far, improvements in health, longevity, and standard of living appear to mitigate against population growth. This may speak against the baby boom you suggest. On the other hand, this 'self-imposed' limitation in birth rate has been observed only in Western cultures and in Japan -- I cannot guarantee that other cultures with somewhat different value systems would replicate this trend.
"The only way that has ever been discovered to have a lot of people cooperate together voluntarily is through the free market. And that's why it's so essential to preserving individual freedom.” -- Milton Friedman
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." -- H. L. Mencken
Re: EXIT NEGOTIATIONS
Funding libraries and what they stand for, Sure Start and similar schemes, such as previous governments had done, would be one way of realising these aspirations. What I'm asking for isn't unrealistic; it's what had been done in the past. What is different is the normalisation of concentration of wealth and power, starting with Austerity and continuing with Brexit. Starve existing programmes that provide opportunity, and call the vacuum that eventuates society as it naturally is. No it's not. It's society as you've shaped it.Have you considered attending church? They are big on aspiration as well. Stating that divergence between rich and poor is bad is the really easy thing. Stating you'd like a fix is just as easy. Now... HOW are you going to stop things being Bad? Many state those who voted for leave were sick of being ignored by all the tiers of government who mainly enrich themselves and their fellows both in role and also after leaving with some nice directorships. Brexit probably won't really fix this but then what, exactly, will?
Grammar schools? Some say they help, others say they help the middle and upper middle classes get ahead and that's about it. I'm a school governor at a Primary School. The teachers are told to throw money at the less able who are generally the poorer ones knowing that it makes sod all difference since there is no follow through in the evenings / weekends / holidays. What to do? Take all children to be looked after in a lovely egalitarian gulag until they're 18 which might equalise outcomes (for those who don't flee the country) at the cost of individual liberty.
Brexiteers aren't all moral angels? How dare they! But then pro-EU politicians all seem to have their little off shore funds which surely hurt no one. I imagine that those in Finance will descend as the do on any other event they can enrich themselves on - Soros made a fortune on the run on the pound. And after causing almost incalculable damage to the world with his amoral collecting of wealth he's doing some bits to give his soul a wash and brush up.
Re: EXIT NEGOTIATIONS
In housing, the state had previously had recourse to social housing to provide for those who cannot find private housing. And given the evidence, the amount of social housing also helped keep rent down in private housing. Much of this social housing has been moved into private hands, to be let out again to renters. This has been a lucrative market for those who can afford to buy to let, while an ever larger proportion of the population has become renters as they can't afford the first step on the property ladder, and simultaneously rent has become an ever larger proportion of expenditure of those who have to pay it. Is this example of the free market an efficient use of resources?
Re: EXIT NEGOTIATIONS
That may well be true, and I'm not sure who here is arguing for full equality and kumbayah.
It still doesn't mean we have to devote our societies to increasing inequality, wish for ourselves and others to be worse off and generally engage in some kind of nihilism if we're not among the rich elites.
One could just as well say that the fight for more equality is about as old and inevitable as the inequality itself.
Besides, humans have a tiny bit more intelligence, technology and potential than quite a few of the other mammals, so far at least.
Is that what you tell failed business entrpreneurs?
Last edited by Husar; 07-05-2018 at 17:26.
"Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu
Re: EXIT NEGOTIATIONS
We don't have to - but that is the psyche of many. In the USA most know things are unequal but with their optimism that flies in the face of all the evidence they think they'll get in on the gravy train before long rather than realising that they would be helped. That doesn't really bode well for having more intelligence - or indeed potential than other mammals...
If resources were given to activities that the average person wanted, museums and theatres would be in trouble whereas the BBC would have rights to all the footie.
Entrepreneurs often try something different to get a different result, accepting that reality will be the same so their approach has to differ. To undertake the same activity hoping that reality will alter to get a different result is less likely to work.
Get up to the 21st Century! There are hundreds of thousands of books for free download, thousands of free online courses. If people can afford their latest phone I'm sure they could get a kindle and read, or a laptop. Schooling used to be limited to 12, then 14, 16, 18 and now increasingly until 21. The increased investment in education has been immense. Of course, the amount that has been learned has remained about the same.
What do Libraries stand for? Hope against reality? The few times I have visited they're hardly packed with people. I do not see how giving more money is going to somehow change the nature of people. It is so sweet that you so desperately want people to be wanting more education and to better themselves and think that if only for the want of investment all would improve. But that is a fantasy. For the few who genuinely do want to escape the dross they have been born into, there's also the "crab bucket" effect to contend with.
Could you point to the Golden Ages of yore of which you speak? Pre-1918 when most were disenfranchised? Pre WW2 and the Great Recession? The good old days of going to the IMF and the three day week? Did your version of Boys from the Blackstuff have them all reading slim versions of Keats of an evening and were oh so grateful that the library was well stocked?
A system such as the Nordics would be very different. But even there as their countries start being less homogeneous more are wondering whether they are seeing value for money.
I've shaped society? I've never even lived in a marginal seat my entire adult life! As I've often said, the electoral system in the UK is rotten to the core
Last edited by rory_20_uk; 07-05-2018 at 19:23.
An enemy that wishes to die for their country is the best sort to face - you both have the same aim in mind.
Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings.
"If you can't trust the local kleptocrat whom you installed by force and prop up with billions of annual dollars, who can you trust?" Lemur
If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain.
The best argument against democracy is a five minute talk with the average voter. Winston Churchill
Re: EXIT NEGOTIATIONS
Furunculus Maneuver: Adopt a highly logical position on a controversial subject where you cannot disagree with the merits of the proposal, only disagree with an opinion based on fundamental values. - Beskar
Re: EXIT NEGOTIATIONS
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-b...-idUSKBN1JZ02Q
Brexit coming along as planned. Sounds like he is an expert on exiting something. A true Daxit.Brexit Secretary David Davis has resigned because he was not willing to be “a reluctant conscript” to Prime Minister Theresa May’s European Union exit plan, delivering a blow to a British leader struggling to end divisions in her cabinet.
Last edited by Husar; 07-09-2018 at 14:54.
"Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu
Re: EXIT NEGOTIATIONS
Bo-jo too.
Furunculus Maneuver: Adopt a highly logical position on a controversial subject where you cannot disagree with the merits of the proposal, only disagree with an opinion based on fundamental values. - Beskar
Re: EXIT NEGOTIATIONS
Yes: https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/bor...-live-updates/
Makes you wonder whether the May-flower will ever reach the promised land.
"Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu
Re: EXIT NEGOTIATIONS
Majority of people were happy with Bojo going.
Unfortunately 'unt is still sat there peachy...
Days since the Apocalypse began
"We are living in space-age times but there's too many of us thinking with stone-age minds" | How to spot a Humanist
"Men of Quality do not fear Equality." | "Belief doesn't change facts. Facts, if you are reasonable, should change your beliefs."
Re: EXIT NEGOTIATIONS
Angus Deayton should be the new Foreign Secretary. Boris Johnson's only qualification for his political career has been his experience at hosting HIGNFY, and Deayton has him beat there.
Re: EXIT NEGOTIATIONS
It made it, but then anchored for the winter and 1/3 of them died.Yes: https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/bor...-live-updates/
Makes you wonder whether the May-flower will ever reach the promised land.
"The only way that has ever been discovered to have a lot of people cooperate together voluntarily is through the free market. And that's why it's so essential to preserving individual freedom.” -- Milton Friedman
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." -- H. L. Mencken
Re: EXIT NEGOTIATIONS
On plus side, 'unt is no longer secretary for health.
Days since the Apocalypse began
"We are living in space-age times but there's too many of us thinking with stone-age minds" | How to spot a Humanist
"Men of Quality do not fear Equality." | "Belief doesn't change facts. Facts, if you are reasonable, should change your beliefs."
Re: EXIT NEGOTIATIONS
Wasn't there a protest for Pro-Remain recently?
Ja mata, TosaInu. You will forever be remembered.
Proud
Been to:
Swords Made of Letters - 1938. The war is looming in France - and Alexandre Reythier does not have much time left to protect his country. A novel set before the war.
A Painted Shield of Honour - 1313. Templar Knights in France are in grave danger. Can they be saved?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks