Glen Quagmire Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 I don't think you necessarily have to be a conspiracy nut to see the affects unchecked capitalism has had on the world wide economy. Â As a history student I can observe that since the onset of capitalism the standard of living for most people in the western world has improved considerably. We live longer, eat better etc. Â Even now in the midst of a recession most of us have it pretty good. Yes and no. If you were to take the capitalist era as that beginning after Feudalism, then I would agree that standards have improved in several areas. However it has been tempered by a lot by regulation (some loose, some very stringent) and a lot of different interpretations in different parts of the world combined with numerous political positions attached to it. Child labour laws, minimum wage laws, trade unions, health & safety and so on have helped contribute along side e.g. ensure that the food you eat is safe, medical treatments are proven to be effective and aren't quackery, you can go to work without fearing that you may end up not coming back home that evening or that what you do will likely send you to an early grave. Â Yep, although we're in a recession we still live comfortable enough lives in this country. Many social developments over the centuries have made what we have today possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Chest Rockwell Posted November 24, 2011 Moderators Share Posted November 24, 2011 I don't think you necessarily have to be a conspiracy nut to see the affects unchecked capitalism has had on the world wide economy. Â As a history student I can observe that since the onset of capitalism the standard of living for most people in the western world has improved considerably. We live longer, eat better etc. Â Even now in the midst of a recession most of us have it pretty good. Yes and no. If you were to take the capitalist era as that beginning after Feudalism, then I would agree that standards have improved in several areas. However it has been tempered by a lot by regulation (some loose, some very stringent) and a lot of different interpretations in different parts of the world combined with numerous political positions attached to it. Child labour laws, minimum wage laws, trade unions, health & safety and so on have helped contribute along side e.g. ensure that the food you eat is safe, medical treatments are proven to be effective and aren't quackery, you can go to work without fearing that you may end up not coming back home that evening or that what you do will likely send you to an early grave. Â Yep, although we're in a recession we still live comfortable enough lives in this country. Many social developments over the centuries have made what we have today possible. Â ...and that all happened within capitalist systems, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glen Quagmire Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 I don't think you necessarily have to be a conspiracy nut to see the affects unchecked capitalism has had on the world wide economy. Â As a history student I can observe that since the onset of capitalism the standard of living for most people in the western world has improved considerably. We live longer, eat better etc. Â Even now in the midst of a recession most of us have it pretty good. Yes and no. If you were to take the capitalist era as that beginning after Feudalism, then I would agree that standards have improved in several areas. However it has been tempered by a lot by regulation (some loose, some very stringent) and a lot of different interpretations in different parts of the world combined with numerous political positions attached to it. Child labour laws, minimum wage laws, trade unions, health & safety and so on have helped contribute along side e.g. ensure that the food you eat is safe, medical treatments are proven to be effective and aren't quackery, you can go to work without fearing that you may end up not coming back home that evening or that what you do will likely send you to an early grave. Â Yep, although we're in a recession we still live comfortable enough lives in this country. Many social developments over the centuries have made what we have today possible. Â ...and that all happened within capitalist systems, no? Actually Yes. My point is that (a) there isn't a definite meaning of capitalism other than the ownership of property and the product of labour, and (b) that other events during this era have helped lead towards individual and social improvements that capitalism on it own did not, or can not deliver but which have been by-products off it to either respond to public concerns, to avoid certain bad behaviours economically happening that can cause large collapses around it, or both. The economic system in the UK, like pretty much everywhere in the world except for North Korea is a mixed one. Some countries, because of tradition, history or philosophy, have different leanings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbins Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 I don't think you necessarily have to be a conspiracy nut to see the affects unchecked capitalism has had on the world wide economy. Â As a history student I can observe that since the onset of capitalism the standard of living for most people in the western world has improved considerably. We live longer, eat better etc. Â Even now in the midst of a recession most of us have it pretty good. Yes and no. If you were to take the capitalist era as that beginning after Feudalism, then I would agree that standards have improved in several areas. However it has been tempered by a lot by regulation (some loose, some very stringent) and a lot of different interpretations in different parts of the world combined with numerous political positions attached to it. Child labour laws, minimum wage laws, trade unions, health & safety and so on have helped contribute along side e.g. ensure that the food you eat is safe, medical treatments are proven to be effective and aren't quackery, you can go to work without fearing that you may end up not coming back home that evening or that what you do will likely send you to an early grave. Â Yep, although we're in a recession we still live comfortable enough lives in this country. Many social developments over the centuries have made what we have today possible. Â ...and that all happened within capitalist systems, no? Is everyone ignoring the keyword "unchecked"? As Glen says, those improvements have come about thanks just as much to the restrictions, regulations and checks put on capitalism as thanks to capitalism itself. You can't just say "things improved under capitalism therefore market fundamentalism and the free market are entirely to thank", it's just one part of the story. The elite will always try and remove those checks from the capitalist system and portray them as holding it back, and being the enemy of a healthy growing economy. What everyone needs to understand is that it's an absolute lie. The economy exists to make things better for everyone, if it's not performing that function, it needs altering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Chest Rockwell Posted November 24, 2011 Moderators Share Posted November 24, 2011 Yes. I didn't see the word unchecked. I haven't bothered to read anything properly tbh, so I'mma just dip now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patiirc Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 Just because a celeb has done something morally dubious doesn't excuse the actions of the gutter press though? Two wrongs etc.  Im not saying it does make it right, I just get a sense that there isnt parity in the whole thing and its concentrating too much on the negatives.  Read the transcripts again and you will see that Flitcroft quite clearly mentions his father's depression prior to all this happening and refers back to it on several occasions.  I will. To be fair, I only caught part of what he said, so that would explain it better, I just found it odd that in all the subsequent reporting that 'facts' were left out to get the boot in on the media and their intrusion into Flitcroft's life as being the most important, when clearly this didnt do anything to help his dad's mental well being and was a factor in his death.  Flitcroft had an affair. So what? It's none of our business. It's a private family matter that none of us, aside from those parties involved, needed to know about. I don't think Flitcrot has attempted in any way to paint himself as 'whiter than white' but merely give his version and opinion of events.  It isn't any of our business, per se, but for whatever reason, it came to the public domain. It was Kiss and Tell by the young lady he slept with iirc. On one side you have Garry Flitcroft trying to prevent this getting out,because of the damage it to him and his marriage and people not finding out about it. On the other there was something about it iirc that was to do with him doing things with one of the two ladies he had affairs with whilst he should have been on club's time as it were,.This lead to his suspension or stripping of being Captain at the club at the time as a result of it ( Ill check with my Blackburn supporting mate tonight to confirm), so there was some kind of justification in that sense, because he wasnt doing his job properly because of the affairs that could have cost his team millions through under performance and so on.  Not trying to justify it, just wish the thing was more 'fairly' looked at, well thats how it seems from the snippets Ive read  If you have a link to the daily notes Ill take a look more into  Elle McPherson's aide story was really harrowing, poor lass, really felt for her as what happened there was a disgrace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members SpursRiot2012 Posted November 24, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted November 24, 2011 (edited) Â Daily Mail journalists play Risk? Edited November 24, 2011 by hope neil dies tbh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted November 24, 2011 Author Share Posted November 24, 2011 Very likely It'd be a mistake at the moment, overstreched as it is, but Iran is close to developing nuclear weaponry & they do seem the type of chaps who seem like they would use them too Unlike the USA of course. Â I hope Iran do develop nuclear weapons. They'll need something to deter the inevitable "liberation" by the usual suspects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members SpursRiot2012 Posted November 24, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted November 24, 2011 Are you also for nuclear disarmament in general? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted November 24, 2011 Author Share Posted November 24, 2011 Are you also for nuclear disarmament in general? If the countries who have them were willing to give them up, then of course I am. As things stand though, can you really blame Iran for wanting to have them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members SpursRiot2012 Posted November 24, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted November 24, 2011 And if every country except Iran disarmed tomorrow morning, do you think Iran would destroy its's (according to reports in this country) "enough uranium for 4 warheads"? Â Also, different topic did anybody see Bill O'Reilly and this chick called Ann Coulter discuss the London riots in August? Â Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blueknowzit Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 nuclear iran= 7000000+ dead jews, if you can live with that and an end to nuclear non-proliferation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vice Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 Also, different topic did anybody see Bill O'Reilly and this chick called Ann Coulter discuss the London riots in August? Vile creatures, both of them.  nuclear iran= 7000000+ dead jews, if you can live with that and an end to nuclear non-proliferation I'm all for nuclear disarmament. But Iran haven't actually done anything with nukes. It'd be an illegal and pre-emptive strike if we attacked Iran just for having them. On the other hand, the US have caused a horrendous atrocity with their nukes. No one's talking about invading them or what a dangerous country they are with all the severe war crimes they're responsible for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members JNLister Posted November 24, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted November 24, 2011 Pretty sure that somewhere between the first Iranian nuke to detonate and the one that killed the seven millionth Jew, there'd be some action against Iran. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted November 24, 2011 Author Share Posted November 24, 2011 I'm all for nuclear disarmament. But Iran haven't actually done anything with nukes. It'd be an illegal and pre-emptive strike if we attacked Iran just for having them. On the other hand, the US have caused a horrendous atrocity with their nukes. No one's talking about invading them or what a dangerous country they are with all the severe war crimes they're responsible for. Exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts