• David Cameron to resign by October
    100 replies, posted
Corbyn never liked the EU.
[QUOTE=mr kjerr;50583444]OH NO!!! private enterprise!! EEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!! thats gonna really kill the UK economy[/QUOTE] Private enterprise means oligopolies by giant corporations, which means I pay Comcast three figures a month for internet that constantly cuts out and even when it does work, never exceeds 3MB/s. Yeah, not a fan. Our friends in Europe pay maybe half of that for a reliable 50MB/s. "Private enterprise" (a.k.a. ultra-capitalism) is a relic; it doesn't work and it becomes less popular with each new generation.
Also big calls from Labour MPs for Corbyn to resign with a letter signed by 55(?) MPs
As much as I like Corbyn for his political conviction and style, I don't want him in charge at the next election because otherwise we'll get Boris.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50582831]Pray that someone better than him replaces him.[/QUOTE] There isn't better really. All we can really hope for is that they pick someone completely unelectable like Osborne, but that's pretty much impossible at this point, they're going to pick a Brexitter. Sadly it's almost certain that it'll be Boris Johnson, who is further right than Cameron, and is scarily popular. It's actually possible that Stephen Crabb could go for it which would be okay since he's a relative moderate, comes across as quite down to earth, and pretty popular.
I woke up with a faint hope of, "Well at least Boris or Osbourne isn't in charge!" well FUCK
[QUOTE=VinLAURiA;50584574]Private enterprise means oligopolies by giant corporations, which means I pay Comcast three figures a month for internet that constantly cuts out and even when it does work, never exceeds 3MB/s. Yeah, not a fan. Our friends in Europe pay maybe half of that for a reliable 50MB/s. "Private enterprise" (a.k.a. ultra-capitalism) is a relic; it doesn't work and it becomes less popular with each new generation.[/QUOTE] It's okay though, cause British internet is shite anyway.
Brexit had time to slowly recover over time but look lets add more on the stack of things to recover from
[QUOTE=Zeke129;50583225]Today was a bunch of people watching a car speeding toward a wall muttering "he's gonna turn, right?" and then he didn't turn and the car exploded into a giant fireball and now the driver is dead and the wall is broken[/QUOTE] Now his wife is going to leave and join a group marriage, his younger sister (the older one died in the car crash) will get into a relationship with the drunken gentlemen to the left, and several of his kids are probably going to kill themselves...
If you take one thing from this mess chaps, it's don't make the same mistakes our parents made. When the baby boomers die out and generations X and Y make up the majority of the voting base, listen to what the generation under us are saying because the decisions we make could fuck up their entire world.
[QUOTE=mr kjerr;50583444]OH NO!!! private enterprise!! EEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!! thats gonna really kill the UK economy[/QUOTE] Actually privatisation is shit. It's why the US has some of the worst health care of any civilized country.
[QUOTE=Novangel;50583337]They're on their own[/QUOTE] [IMG]https://facepunch.com/fp/flags/au.png[/IMG] this post gave me the shittiest giggle
[QUOTE=Strike 86;50586793]If you take one thing from this mess chaps, it's don't make the same mistakes our parents made. When the baby boomers die out and generations X and Y make up the majority of the voting base, listen to what the generation under us are saying because the decisions we make could fuck up their entire world.[/QUOTE] I think having the internet and being able to research things independently instead of listening to people around you will be a big plus for us
[QUOTE=archangel125;50587107]Actually privatisation is shit. It's why the US has some of the worst health care of any civilized country.[/QUOTE] its always the health care foreigners seem to bring up without knowing any of the history behind our system at all. you realize that the government has had their hand in the cookie jar for so long with awful artificial price controls that increase demand and limit supply resulting in a huge price increase? you can think its solely greed all you want, but if you do some research you'll find out just how dead wrong you are
[QUOTE=mr kjerr;50590084]its always the health care foreigners seem to bring up without knowing any of the history behind our system at all. you realize that the government has had their hand in the cookie jar for so long with awful artificial price controls that increase demand and limit supply resulting in a huge price increase? you can think its solely greed all you want, but if you do some research you'll find out just how dead wrong you are[/QUOTE] Even should that be true, the price would only get higher if controls were removed. It's naive to cling to this idea that "free market benefits the consumer!" and that open competition drives prices down, especially in America's economic landscape these days. It's so easy to break that model into pieces, and everyone knows how to do it now. Again: that whole concept is a relic. All it would take is collusion from the biggest pharmaceuticals to not undercut each other to raise the prices even higher while they muscle out any smaller firms attempting to actually complete. Without oversight, what would stop them from doing so? Considering how many other major American industries have fallen into this exact dilemma already (telecom, automotive, insurance, large bank chains), precedent indicates it's almost certain it would happen in healthcare as well. Why would you ever expect them to not immediately do this as soon as regulations were lifted? These providers don't care about you, they're ruthless. They care about their bottom line and collusion would be the best possible thing for that - I mean, what would be the risk to doing so? This is healthcare. People [i]need[/i] it. Demand simply [i]can't[/i] go down no matter what the providers do, because there are lives are on the line. If people are stuck going to you, the optimal thing to do from a purely financial standpoint is to conspire with your "competition" to utterly bleed those people dry.
[QUOTE=VinLAURiA;50590434]Even should that be true, the price would only get higher if controls were removed. It's naive to cling to this idea that "free market benefits the consumer!" and that open competition drives prices down, especially in America's economic landscape these days. It's so easy to break that model into pieces, and everyone knows how to do it now. Again: that whole concept is a relic. All it would take is collusion from the biggest pharmaceuticals to not undercut each other to raise the prices even higher while they muscle out any smaller firms attempting to actually complete. Without oversight, what would stop them from doing so? Considering how many other major American industries have fallen into this exact dilemma already (telecom, automotive, insurance, large bank chains), precedent indicates it's almost certain it would happen in healthcare as well. Why would you ever expect them to not immediately do this as soon as regulations were lifted? These providers don't care about you, they're ruthless. They care about their bottom line and collusion would be the best possible thing for that - I mean, what would be the risk to doing so? This is healthcare. People [i]need[/i] it. Demand simply [i]can't[/i] go down no matter what the providers do, because there are lives are on the line. If people are stuck going to you, the optimal thing to do from a purely financial standpoint is to conspire with your "competition" to utterly bleed those people dry.[/QUOTE] hilarious how you come to the conclusion that my ideas are based on naivety when you yourself seem to have a pessimistic world view that seems to see everyone as immoral. if you were a company owner or researcher would you charge a ridiculous price for a life saving drug that you could mass produce?
[QUOTE=mr kjerr;50590635]if you were a company owner or researcher would you charge a ridiculous price for a life saving drug that you could mass produce?[/QUOTE] Yes. Profit Maximisation.
[QUOTE=Boilrig;50590648]Yes. Profit Maximisation.[/QUOTE] so what you're saying is that you personally are a sociopath who would disregard the safety and well being of people below you in order to make more money, and to rectify this you want other sociopaths with guns to enforce a law limiting your sociopathy? man thats fucked up
[QUOTE=mr kjerr;50590693]so what you're saying is that you personally are a sociopath who would disregard the safety and well being of people below you in order to make more money, and to rectify this you want other sociopaths with guns to enforce a law limiting your sociopathy? man thats fucked up[/QUOTE] No. They're saying that no matter what, [I]corporations[/I] are sociopatic in nature, as they exist to bring profit maximization, through moral or immoral means. The reason why we legislate and control them through said legislature is to prevent them from finding profit maximization through immoral/detrimental-to-the-public means, and ensure that their actions don't destabilize the economy as a whole.
[QUOTE=ClarkWasHere;50590738]No. They're saying that no matter what, [I]corporations[/I] are sociopatic in nature, as they exist to bring profit maximization, through moral or immoral means. The reason why we legislate and control them through said legislature is to prevent them from finding profit maximization through immoral/detrimental-to-the-public means, and ensure that their actions don't distabilize the economy as a whole.[/QUOTE] Exactly this.
[QUOTE=ClarkWasHere;50590738]No. They're saying that no matter what, [I]corporations[/I] are sociopatic in nature, as they exist to bring profit maximization, through moral or immoral means. The reason why we legislate and control them through said legislature is to prevent them from finding profit maximization through immoral/detrimental-to-the-public means, and ensure that their actions don't destabilize the economy as a whole.[/QUOTE] oh yeah, those evil corporations, right. which are made up of people, who you believe to be immoral for some reason? are people inherently immoral?
[QUOTE=mr kjerr;50590693]so what you're saying is that you personally are a sociopath who would disregard the safety and well being of people below you in order to make more money, and to rectify this you want other sociopaths with guns to enforce a law limiting your sociopathy? man thats fucked up[/QUOTE] Bit of a strawman there. He is just pointing out that private healtcare works as follows; Company/hospital creates/has drug/life saving treatment, they set the price at a point that will make Investors happy and cover costs, and if you can't Pay that price, you are screwed (or in debt for the rest of your life, choices are nice I guess). What else can one expect from a system where profit is the center and not people?
[QUOTE=mr kjerr;50590747]oh yeah, those evil corporations, right. which are made up of people, who you believe to be immoral for some reason? are people inherently immoral?[/QUOTE] No, its that they have money to make for investors and boards, who will replace them with someone willing and able to do what they ask if they don't meet goals or take a 'moral high ground' in supplying the public with drugs that has no competition and has no reason to be cheap either.
[QUOTE=Boilrig;50590757]No, its that they have money to make for investors and boards, who will replace them with someone willing and able to do what they ask if they don't meet goals or take a 'moral high ground' in supplying the public with drugs that has no competition and has no reason to be cheap either.[/QUOTE] you mean all companies are owned and controlled by investors and boards? that doesn't sound right to me
[QUOTE=mr kjerr;50590761]you mean all companies are owned and controlled by investors and boards? that doesn't sound right to me[/QUOTE] Basically most companies end up joining the stock market or have startup investors who own a certain amount of shares. So yes, companies are owned by whoever has the most stock and thus has the power to choose the CEO and therefore direction of the company.
[QUOTE=Boilrig;50590769]Basically most companies end up joining the stock market or have startup investors who own a certain amount of shares. So yes, companies are owned by whoever has the most stock and thus has the power to choose the CEO and therefore direction of the company.[/QUOTE] oh "basically most." guess you shouldn't have spoken in absolutesl. so you think that all investors and stockbrokers or whatever lingo buzzword thing you want to use next are immoral people?
[QUOTE=mr kjerr;50590772]oh "basically most." guess you shouldn't have spoken in absolutesl. so you think that all investors and stockbrokers or whatever lingo buzzword thing you want to use next are immoral people?[/QUOTE] There's only one example I can think of being a large company which isn't public which would be Valve. Due to their position as not being public, they have no board to answer to or investors to make money for as they are a privately owned company. The perfect example as the opposite of this is Electronic Arts, who are on the stock market and people will say most of all their decisions are money based, because yes, they have investors to make money for, so microtransactions and high game prices are perfect for that. When it comes to investors and stockbrokers, they can be considered immoral as in some cases, for example they buy entire companies and then shut them down because the land and capital of that factory is worth more than the business itself putting hundreds of people out of jobs.
what's up with that unwarranted sarcasm over there kjerr kinda embarrassing huh dude's having a discussion
[QUOTE=mr kjerr;50590747]oh yeah, those evil corporations, right. which are made up of people, who you believe to be immoral for some reason? are people inherently immoral?[/QUOTE] That is not what he is saying. Are you trying to say that corporations, because there are people working there, cares more about the wellbeing of the population than profit? I find that hard to believe, considering the healtcare situation in the US.
literally everyone on my facebook have suddenly decided they're a politician but i can't seem to find a single person who's upset about cameron resigning [editline]25th June 2016[/editline] hey automerge how ya doin
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.