Jump to content


  • Post count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Sampson last won the day on 12 April 2016

Sampson had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,191 Excellent

About Sampson

  • Rank
    Key Player

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

4,529 profile views
  1. Sampson


    Dan Carlin is great. Ghosts of the Osfront was a fantastic series about the Eastern Front too.
  2. Sampson

    Vardy - 100 club.

    It's 96. I'm not having the Charity Shield as a competitive match when you can use so many subs.
  3. Sampson

    Tottenham Hotspur (A) Match Thread

    Think Puel was on the sauce last night.
  4. Sampson

    Unpopular Opinions You Hold

    I know what Socialism is. I was asking what you're idea of how it should be implemented was, seeing as it's a very macroeconomic concept built on 19th century ideals and came out of a 19th century Economic climate which doesnt explain implementation in the 21st Century and you were the one saying anyone who isn't a Socialist is stupid and scared, so I just wanted to know how you think it should work in the real world. But I see you don't want to answer that which is fine. Ok. So I'm stupid, scared and greedy because I wanted a better life for my children? And want to leave my property and objects to my children when I die? Property and objects I worked many 80+ hour weeks for over many decades, solely to help provide for my family? Is there anything else you want to accuse me of? Of course I care about people suffering. That's why I don't want economies where more people are poor, mass poverty or hyper-inflation happens as often happens in Socialist societies. I just don't understand why public ownership solves that and why that means the whole system has to be overthrown rather than worked inm. It's hard to argue that a lot more wealth gets created in Capitalist societies than in Socialist ones - if you want to redistribute that more and try to balance that without reducing wealth creation and/or causing inflation, fair enough, but that's a difficult but doable task. But I just don't see where that leads to overhauling the whole system rather than trying to make changes within the system. There are millions of people starving and suffering in Socialist countries like Venezuela, North Korea and Zimbabwe too - why do you not care about them or want to overhaul their system or are you happy to write all the pain and suffering in those countries to just beung down to "capitalist interference" rather than corrupt leaders, ecobomic stagnation or hyper-inflation? But you want to overhaul the whole system in Capitalist countries like Germany, the UK, Singapore and Sweden because there are people suffering and starving there (which there are)? You really think Socialist societies have only been destroyed by "capitalist interference"? You really think hyper-inflation only happens in Socialist countries because of Capitalist interference? You really think the uprisings in the USSR, Maoist China or Cambodia only happened because of Capitalist interference and not the mass poverty and Economic stagnation amongst the general population? If people have to suffer in a transition period between Capitalism and Socialim say, as would undoubtably happen, how many people is small enough for this to be ok? And how do you reduce this? If it's just my fear of force, thrn explain how you do it peacefully? How do you stop this "capitalist interference" you talk of? What do you do to people who prefer capitalism and don't want to give up their private property they worked hard for even if they aren't rich "pigs" but just someone on minimum wage who worked long 80+ hour weeks to save up to buy a car or a flat - how do you take that private property off them non-forcefully just because they have different political beliefs to you? I'm not disagreeing with you that there's issues with Capitalism. And if you think this means we have to overhaul it's fundamental ideas of private ownership and enterprise rather than work on ideas within those systems then that's fine, that's your opinion. But I don't understand why you think people are just stupid, scared or greedy for thinking that an Economy driven by public ownership would lead to more suffering and poverty than currently exists in Economies driven by private Economies and/or the transition period between the two would lead to so much pain and suffering for so little gain on the other side that it would not be worth it.
  5. Sampson

    Unpopular Opinions You Hold

    But how does your society look? "The means of production" meant factories when most people worked in factories in the early 19th century. Nowadays, most people work in service jobs in offices, retail, transport etc. and aren't "producing" physical items, but instead are producing services - so what does that even mean in 2019? What are people owning? And how are they owning this? Through the state or collectives or syndicates? Surely if I'm stupid or scared for not believing in Socialism, I have to actually know what you mean by Socialism? And surely you've thought through how tgis society would work if it's a deeply held belief of yours? I will hazard a guess you don't have children because if you want to forcefully take people's property away from the moment they die rather than allowing them to pass them on to their children then I can guarantee you'd greatly lower production levels in a country. There's no bigger motivation for a person to work hard than to make a better life for their children (Well apart from fear) then they themselves had. And why does this need to be done by force? And if not how would you handle this transaction peacefully? Why shouldn't people have the individual choice of what happens to their property when they die? And who enforces it if they don't? The state? As for parts 3 or 4 - how does Socialism solve that? Because all real world evidence suggests that Capitalism has pulled billions of people out of poverty abd allowed people to work less hours whereas Socialism doesn't and how does it work that public ownership of the means of production doesn't cause wealth inequality or that the people of the 4 or 5 Socialist countries which exist (I.e. North Korea, Cuba, Laos, Zimbabwe) that there isn't great wealth inequality. Dodgy contracts and having to work 2 jobs are issues in societies in general we have to help but I don't really see what that anything to do with who owns the means of production or not or why you think Socialism suddenly solves that. Why does wealth inequality matter in the slightest or some fact about pound coins matter? If the poor people have better lives? Why does it matter how rich the rich people are? How are we going to reduce the number of billionaires and redistribute their wealth without causing serious inflation? Through force? What does that even have to do with "owning the means of production"? I'm just curious, because I want to know why I'm stupid and scared because I can't see how you can create a society driven by an Economy of public ownership without it being built on the sword and oppressive and/or lead to massive inflation and poverty. And it's fine to criticise Capitalism, there's plenty of issues with it, but if you're advocating overhauling the entire system rather than working on the issues within Capitalism, then you have to offer how the alternative overhauled system works else I don't know what I'm being stupid for and scared of.
  6. Sampson

    Unpopular Opinions You Hold

    Conflict of interest will always exist regardless, unless you live in a system with an overbearing entity which takes away individual choice - which is what many Socialist states have tried to do. As Kopfkino says, I think you're using a too narrow net of "competition" - you're thinking of it of Isreal vs Palestine, Tesco vs Sainsburys or Labour supporters vs Conservative supporters at the level of governments, huge business and nations - which is fine, but that's a tiny, tiny fraction of it. Conflict, conflict of interest and competition will always exist as long as people are allowed to make individual choices, we all make hundreds of these a day - as Kopfkino says this can be everything from deciding between meeting 2 friends, deciding whether to walk or cycle somewhere, deciding to walk round a slow walker in the supermarket, slow down peacefully or slow down and chunter behind them. The problem is we all have limited time - and we all have to decide how to use these - split between work, education, leisure, spending time with family/friends and rest - and the thousands of decisions we make a day in our own individual idea of how to spend these hours based on our DNA and life experience (I don't believe in Libertarian free-will but you can throw that in too if you do, which is fair enough) - and this will always come in conflict with other people who want to spend this time a different way or have different DNA and life experiences as they will often want to choose different things. Isreal vs Palestine or Tesco vs Sainsbury's or Labour supporters vs Conservative supporters are just expanded versions of this - they ultimately started of conflicts of interests of a few people - 2 sets of people believed a land was historically "theirs" - 2 originally small sets of people wanted to sell similar things - 2 small sets of people originally felt their ultimate political belief (which is now greatly different and unrecognizable from modern Conservative or Labour supporters) was more helpful than the other. These just built up over time, but they ultimately started as conflicts of interest because some people wanted to spend their time differently - and Economics, after all, is much more about how people choose to spend their time than how they choose to spend their money. Btw, this sounds like I think humans are individual animals rather than communal animals which I don't - I think humans are pack animals. Most people will be selfless or even prepared to sacrifice themselves for their family and friends - and most conflicts of interest imcluding I'm sure Isreal vs Palestine, Tesco vs Sainsbury's or Labour vs Conservatives all happen or started largely because people are/were trying to look out for or look after their own individual friends and family rather than what's best for themselves or society as a whole - and people will always tend to prioeitise their own individual family and friends above the rest of society or even often over themselves. It's why most people would rather hang out with their friends and family rather than work or why (based purely on anecdotal evidence, not any scientific study) it seems to me that the biggest motivation for people to work longer hours, to try and progress in their career etc. is not solely for money or for themselves, but to try and create a better life for their children, their partner, parents or siblings. I don't believe most people are materialistic (not that I think there's anything wrong with being materialistic) after a certain age- it's understandable that people often are in their late teens or early 20s when they first have their own money and no family to support but I find people generally would rather spend money on experiences with their families and friends rather than on material items.
  7. Sampson

    Unpopular Opinions You Hold

    I'm not suggesting non-competitive models wouldn't work necessarily, though I agree they wouldn't work as well and I think people would gradually become too comfortable, take too many shortcuts and no one would contribute to society out of their "goodness of their heart" - maybe for the first generation of people who experienced what was before they would - but once people are born into the system and don't have any recognition of what came before w . Competition is a natural product of people having different skills - people only have limited labour hours and they always need to be negotiated in some way - and different people have different skills which are more or less in demand - this will always lead to some form of conflict of interest and competition in some way. My issue with capitalism vs socialism is more about the private ownership and private enterprise side of Capitalism rather than the competition side though - I don't believe Socialism is a utopian theory which doesn't work, I believe Socailism a downright nasty theory which has played out exactly as it is intended in the real world - the fundamental distrust of private ownership and private enterprise is the fundamental distrust that people can go about private transactions peacefully and share things and help others on their own without needing any help from the state or a collective or a syndicate or whatever the alternative model is; and it's a fundamental distrust that people can't make their own individual decisions and so decisions need to be made collectively at a micro and macro level. This isn't to say there aren't many, many issues with Capitalism - there are. But those are issues that need to be worked out within Capitalism - and many of them have been over the centuries, I don't see how you jump from the very real problem of say, poverty or cartels and decide that the only way to solve that is to do away with private property and private enterprise and exchange for profit - the fundamental tenants of Capitalism i.e. private ownership and private enterprise and which people can buy and sell objects, services and property for profit are good ones, the system is far from perfect and needs regulating and constantly tweaking in a lot of lot of ways for sure, but the idea that that suddenly need to overhaul the system, take individuals and business' liberty to own their own things
  8. Sampson

    Unpopular Opinions You Hold

    Anyone over the age of 14 who still claims to be a Socialist has never actually considered how a Socialist society would work. I'd like to hear ozleicester's description of how his Socialist society and government is actually set out. Most people who claim to be socialists would instantly regret it the moment they have to work longer hours for less money and then when they just want to go home and relax by watching tv or play computer games they can't, because they don't own their tv and computer and it's not their alloted time to us it. Socialism is and always has been a middle-class movement from people who want to be the ones making the decisions and who (as ozleicester demonstrated) talk down to the intelligence of the working-classes to try and get them to follow them.
  9. Sampson

    What's in the news?

    Well you can only borrow money for so long until you have to pay it back and most people didn't want to keep borrowing and screw over their children even more in 20 years time after another 2 decades of borrowing. That's why austerity has won the last 3 elections despite most people voting for it through gritted teeth. Keynesian economics failed because it didn't recognise stagflation and didn't consider it possible that while it's universally accepted that when you borrow and invest inflation naturally goes up at a higher rate, that economic growth eventually stagnates amd unemployment rises. Jon the hat is right though. Generally, a cycle of a generation of borrowing and investing, followed by a cycle of a generation of austerity and paying it back is how it works best. After the financial crisis, a Tory government for a generation was naturally voted for. Whether that needs to come to an end or not remains to be seen. However, Labour's insistence on having a front bench novelty candidate who seem to glorify Latin American banana republics rather than having a serious candidate who offers sensible investment rhetoric rather than "Castro and Chavez were great men" mean the electorate don't really have that alternative to vote for.
  10. Sampson


    I mean... How do you get that to mean he's not happy? He's just calling a random person a ****ing knobhead. It could be an opposition player, a fan, the referee or anyone.
  11. Sampson

    No wins since New Years day

    Pretty sure we'd won about 2 in 10 before the Man city and Chelsea games too. Those games really did paper over the cracks. Those 2 results aside we've been woeful since October time really.
  12. Sampson

    Man Utd Home Post Match 0-1

    Ricardo cost us 2 points with a brain dead moment in an otherwise pretty mediocre and forgettable game. There was all there rèally was to it today. Can't blame the manager too much today.
  13. Sampson

    Man Utd Home Match Thread

    Albrighton not even on the bench?
  14. Is "stay or go" referring to now? As it stands, I want Puel to go in the summer, but stay until then.
  15. Sampson

    Liverpool (a) Pre Match Thread

    Didn't Miguel Vitor do his hamstring in because of the snow and he was out for about 3 months because of that game?