Harry - LCFC Posted 26 April 2015 Posted 26 April 2015 What are you talking about? By the way a lot of "wealth" has been generated by raping the earth - the earth that doesn't belong to any single person or corporation. If the price of abusing the earth was taken into account instead of ignored then profits wouldn't be profits anymore. Still other people pay for our use of the earth. Watch this to educate yourself: http://www.ted.com/talks/pavan_sukhdev_what_s_the_price_of_nature?language=en The sentence you've highlighted is extremely easy to understand. I don't know why you're pretending not to understand because but I'll move on in the knowledge that you clearly do. Quite an amusing use of quotation marks on the word 'wealth' there too, as if to suggest that all the stuff we have now isn't valuable, useful and extremely beneficial to human beings. Hilarious. Profits would still be profits. We are unquestionably better off as a resulted of exploiting the planet. We have profited from our activities. That's not to say we won't need to find ways around this planet's limits one day but I think we'll be able to do that.
Guest Posted 26 April 2015 Posted 26 April 2015 Sorry Harry but you DO need to explain to me that in Prehistoric times everyone was poor. It is such a ridiculous statement to base your whole theory on. And you misunderstood completely my point about "wealth" it's not suggesting what we have isn't valuable - quite the opposite it's suggesting that much more than what you are defining as wealth is "wealth".
MiniFox Posted 26 April 2015 Posted 26 April 2015 Record number of outlets offering free food resulting in record numbers of people receiving free food shocker. Should be "well done the tories for offering poor people free food", no? Wouldn't it be better if we didn't have to offer as many poor people free food? No?
Harry - LCFC Posted 26 April 2015 Posted 26 April 2015 Sorry Harry but you DO need to explain to me that in Prehistoric times everyone was poor. It is such a ridiculous statement to base your whole theory on. And you misunderstood completely my point about "wealth" it's not suggesting what we have isn't valuable - quite the opposite it's suggesting that much more than what you are defining as wealth is "wealth". In prehistoric times people did not have cars, refrigeration, housing, selection of food, modern medicine, high quality entertainment etc. and thus could be said to poor compared to modern day standards. A totally uncontroversial and indisputable point that you had accepted long before I'd made it. Wealth to me is only about material possessions. Quality of life, the thing you're referring (see how easy it is to understand an obvious point, even when the person doesn't explain it fully?) is important but again that has increased along with material wealth over time. We're 'richer' (as you would like me to say) in both ways.
MooseBreath Posted 26 April 2015 Posted 26 April 2015 Wouldn't it be better if we didn't have to offer as many poor people free food? No? Of course it would. The point is that the number of food banks is a ridiculous unit by which to measure wellbeing. It's like offering people free money and then using the fact they they took is as proof that they're struggling. No, people just like free stuff. Look at plummeting unemployment and rocketing wage growth if you want worthwhile measurements.
MiniFox Posted 26 April 2015 Posted 26 April 2015 Of course it would. The point is that the number of food banks is a ridiculous unit by which to measure wellbeing. It's like offering people free money and then using the fact they they took is as proof that they're struggling. No, people just like free stuff. Look at plummeting unemployment and rocketing wage growth if you want worthwhile measurements. It isn't just a case of anyone can go and have a pick of what ever they like, there are certain procedures, nor me or you could just turn up and have what we like. I believe you need a referral from a doctor or someone like that. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/apr/23/food-bank-poverty-benefits "No one I’ve met wants to come to the food bank. It’s a last resort, adopted when other ways of coping in a crisis have been exhausted. Hundreds of people are referred to us every month and each one has a story to tell. Robert had been working full-time and was receiving employment support allowance due to a leg injury. Before his appointment at a work-related activity group, he collapsed in town: the injury turned out to be a serious blood clot. He was rushed to hospital, missed the appointment and had his benefits stopped. He had to manage without any income for over five weeks and turned to the food bank." The fact is their will be some who find ways to take advantage of the system, but the majority don't, the majority don't want to use food banks at the end of the day, I just don't see how you can shrug it off as if the figures mean nothing.
Guest Posted 26 April 2015 Posted 26 April 2015 In prehistoric times people did not have cars, refrigeration, housing, selection of food, modern medicine, high quality entertainment etc. and thus could be said to poor compared to modern day standards. A totally uncontroversial and indisputable point that you had accepted long before I'd made it. Wealth to me is only about material possessions. Quality of life, the thing you're referring (see how easy it is to understand an obvious point, even when the person doesn't explain it fully?) is important but again that has increased along with material wealth over time. We're 'richer' (as you would like me to say) in both ways. From what you are saying "wealth" didn't exist in prehistoric times so why are you using it as a basis for a comparison of today? Prehistoric man cannot be said to be poor compared to modern day standards. There is simply no comparison. It was an irrelevant comment. Poor is also a strange word to use across millenia - we cannot compare these ideas avcross millenia.. I'd rather you don't put ideas like "we're richer" into my mouth. Am I poorer than you if I live in a paradise with little cash (which is unneeded) and you live in an industrial city with lots of cash (which is needed)? And before you say anything I'm not saying that I or you do - it's hypothetical.
Guest Posted 26 April 2015 Posted 26 April 2015 Of course it would. The point is that the number of food banks is a ridiculous unit by which to measure wellbeing. It's like offering people free money and then using the fact they they took is as proof that they're struggling. No, people just like free stuff. Look at plummeting unemployment and rocketing wage growth if you want worthwhile measurements. Another of your economic marvels. Even the government figures are not plummeting! I find the ways that unemployment are calculated now as very deceptive and the inclusion of people on zero hour contracts as employed is totally ridiculous.
Harry - LCFC Posted 26 April 2015 Posted 26 April 2015 From what you are saying "wealth" didn't exist in prehistoric times so why are you using it as a basis for a comparison of today? Prehistoric man cannot be said to be poor compared to modern day standards. There is simply no comparison. It was an irrelevant comment. Poor is also a strange word to use across millenia - we cannot compare these ideas avcross millenia.. I'd rather you don't put ideas like "we're richer" into my mouth. Am I poorer than you if I live in a paradise with little cash (which is unneeded) and you live in an industrial city with lots of cash (which is needed)? And before you say anything I'm not saying that I or you do - it's hypothetical. I'd need to know more about your life than that to answer your question. If I have access to more and higher quality goods and services such as the ones I listed then I would say that I am richer. It might be that your life is more fulfilling - although that's unlikely IMO - but I struggle to see how one could argue that I wouldn't be richer than you. Also, why it is that you don't live in a paradise with little cash?
MooseBreath Posted 26 April 2015 Posted 26 April 2015 Another of your economic marvels. Even the government figures are not plummeting! I find the ways that unemployment are calculated now as very deceptive and the inclusion of people on zero hour contracts as employed is totally ridiculous. There aren't any government figures so you wrong on that. The ONS figures have shown falling unemployment for about four solid years so you're wrong on that. Zero hours contracts have been done to death on here and you're wrong on that. Three points made, wrong three times. Actually not a bad post by your standards
Rincewind Posted 26 April 2015 Posted 26 April 2015 Another of your economic marvels. Even the government figures are not plummeting! I find the ways that unemployment are calculated now as very deceptive and the inclusion of people on zero hour contracts as employed is totally ridiculous. True and those that are sanctioned are not classed as unemployed. There are a number of people that are unclassified so figures can be moved around. Glass half empty half full kind of thing. All governments do it. In preastoric times I would still say some were better off. The leaders would have the best shelter or animal furs. It would be his job to see all the others were looked after and make all the decissions. A responsible job so would merit the extras. He would also have first choice of the women. No Tinder back then just a grab of the hair and off to his tent. The gap has got wider between those that have and those that have not. It depends what is considered as wealth. I consider it as good health friends and family and a reasonable standard of living. Others would want multiple houses big cars and millions in the bank. That is not for me. I am happy with what I have. And not greedy enough to take it off those with less so to have even more.
RobHawk Posted 26 April 2015 Posted 26 April 2015 It's fooling nobody I'm afraid, it will be the only way Labour can gain power. The supply and confidence deal is coming, any Englishman or woman who votes for this is bonkers IMO. Don't let ideological hatred of the Tories blind you to this very real and very dangerous possibility. So I'm the fool, but you haven't fallen hook, line and sinker for the Tory scare tactics? I think Milliband has a plan up his sleeve and I don't think he's planning on working exclusively with anyone. If you think about it he has no choice, working with the SNP shows Scottish voters they can vote SNP and still get a labour government but with more focus on Scotland. This could permanently end labours chances in Scotland. It would also kill the labour vote in England too. Milliband either plans to lead a minority government on an issue by issue basis, or he's playing the long game thinking that instability and a new election will result in a stronger Labour Party if he stands by his beliefs through thick and thin. Throw in a potential leadership change for the Torys and possibly lib dems and he could be much stronger. That's all speculation, but watching him today, I think he knows the worst thing he can do is sell out and end up like the lib dems this time around.
MooseBreath Posted 26 April 2015 Posted 26 April 2015 True and those that are sanctioned are not classed as unemployed. There are a number of people that are unclassified so figures can be moved around. Glass half empty half full kind of thing. All governments do it. In preastoric times I would still say some were better off. The leaders would have the best shelter or animal furs. It would be his job to see all the others were looked after and make all the decissions. A responsible job so would merit the extras. He would also have first choice of the women. No Tinder back then just a grab of the hair and off to his tent. The gap has got wider between those that have and those that have not. It depends what is considered as wealth. I consider it as good health friends and family and a reasonable standard of living. Others would want multiple houses big cars and millions in the bank. That is not for me. I am happy with what I have. And not greedy enough to take it off those with less so to have even more. what a great kenpost
Rincewind Posted 26 April 2015 Posted 26 April 2015 Thank you Moose even though I suspect you were being sarcastic and did not mean it.But I'll take any compliment I can.
Guest ttfn Posted 26 April 2015 Posted 26 April 2015 Absolutely baffles me that there is any talk of getting rid of Cameron. He's the only remotely competent leader they've had for 25 years.
DANGEROUS TIGER Posted 26 April 2015 Posted 26 April 2015 Thank you Moose even though I suspect you were being sarcastic and did not mean it.But I'll take any compliment I can. I agree with 90% of it, Ken.
Guest Bilo Posted 26 April 2015 Posted 26 April 2015 Harry Potter and the Polish Wizards? Harry Potter and the Deathly Immigrants? I knew a lot of politicians went to the same school, but I always thought it was Eton rather than Hogwarts....
bovril Posted 26 April 2015 Posted 26 April 2015 Charlie will cop off with some hot young Romanian in freshers' week and subsequently join the Greens.
ADK Posted 26 April 2015 Posted 26 April 2015 He'll regret that photo when he's running for the Tory leadership in 30 years.
sphericalfox Posted 26 April 2015 Posted 26 April 2015 Charlie will cop off with some hot young Romanian in freshers' week and subsequently join the Greens. I've seen him in a number of interviews. He'll not be copping off with anyone. He came across as though he had Asperger's.
bovril Posted 26 April 2015 Posted 26 April 2015 I remember watching some French film about a young woman going round sleeping with Conservatives to turn them. I like to think there is a troupe of leggy Eastern European women doing the same at UKIP conferences.
Alf Bentley Posted 27 April 2015 Posted 27 April 2015 He'll regret that photo when he's running for the Tory leadership in 30 years. Good excuse to bring out William Hague, aged 16, addressing the 1977 Tory party conference. He has a good line in cheeky humour, to be fair. Note how, when he makes his joke about hoping that "the Thatcher government will get out of the way", all the party grandees wait to see whether Maggie claps, before they do! Might have been Tory leader in a fortnight's time (or a few years back) if he hadn't taken the poisoned chalice after the 1997 defeat.
Bettsj2 Posted 27 April 2015 Posted 27 April 2015 Milliband took Boris apart on Andrew Marr. First time i've seen Ed in that situation in complete control.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.