UK Politics Thread III: Thready McThreadface (+ Jo Cox)

[Souseiseki]

Mr. Blair really had his priorities confused;
Saddam Hussein didn't pursue any real action against Britain, and Blair had him ousted; Gaddaffi helped numerous acts of terror against the UK, but he was fine with that. Very odd.

Should have stuck to social policy. He was good at that.

shame about all the authoritarianism

[Eastfield Lodge]

Mr. Blair really had his priorities confused;
Saddam Hussein didn't pursue any real action against Britain, and Blair had him ousted; Gaddaffi helped numerous acts of terror against the UK, but he was fine with that. Very odd.

Nice derailing of the conversation regarding your own values, by the way.

Given that Saddam wasn't really a threat to the West, would your hypothetical arms company have supplied his government and its genocide?

[Lamadia]

Mr. Blair really had his priorities confused;
Saddam Hussein didn't pursue any real action against Britain, and Blair had him ousted; Gaddaffi helped numerous acts of terror against the UK, but he was fine with that. Very odd.

Nice derailing of the conversation regarding your own values, by the way.

Given that Saddam wasn't really a threat to the West, would your hypothetical arms company have supplied his government and its genocide?

As the Board of BAE. I, ideally, would trade the company stock, not decide who it sells to.

[Philjia]

Nice derailing of the conversation regarding your own values, by the way.

Given that Saddam wasn't really a threat to the West, would your hypothetical arms company have supplied his government and its genocide?

As the Board of BAE. I, ideally, would trade the company stock, not decide who it sells to.

Thus making the arms "somebody else's problem", right?

[Lamadia]

As the Board of BAE. I, ideally, would trade the company stock, not decide who it sells to.

Thus making the arms "somebody else's problem", right?

You are the one derailing the conversation.
Weapons companies should not sell to terrorist groups, or countries embarking on acts of genocide. The realism is, however, that countries like Saudi Arabia with human rights violations have to be armed to serve out interests in the region.

[Eastfield Lodge]

Thus making the arms "somebody else's problem", right?

You are the one derailing the conversation.
Weapons companies should not sell to terrorist groups, or countries embarking on acts of genocide. The realism is, however, that countries like Saudi Arabia with human rights violations have to be armed to serve out interests in the region.

So what? In your perfect libertarian world the government can do jack shit to domestic companies that supply their enemies.

[Questers]

I hope you are all having a happy V.E. day btw. Just when you need to remember: not everything is about money.

Certainly economics isn't all about money. Economics is perhaps the study of scarce resources, and goods, and services, and how we make them and how everyone gets them and why.

[Kuruinulah]

Pro: Iran, Russia, Assad, Palestine, Libertarianism, Third Position, Jobbik, Sufism, Yugoslav Reunification, Traditionalism, 2nd Amendment, British people, Pan-Indoaryanism, Western Sahara, Hezbollah.

One of these is not like the other

comign from the person who thinks you can support Turkey, FSA, and Israel at the same time.


Cuck

[Questers]

>supports putin
>calls people cuck

lol

[Questers]

alt right aka basement right

[Questers]

Anyway, regarding nationalised state industries. I was going to write a long post but it's pointless.

The purpose of nationalisation is... (in no particular order)

• To provide democratic oversight over long-term economic objectives,
• To amass surplus in a British Sovereign Wealth Fund,
• To be able to rapidly marshal national resources for particular goals,¹
• To guarantee employment to communities and,
• To create meaningful and dignified jobs for a large portion of the British working class,²
• To support long-term, sustainable, green, investment-driven economic growth

These should form part of a generally interventionist/indicatively-planned Industrial Policy & Export-led growth. We don't actually need to nationalise these firms, it's just the obvious route.

The first-order goal of the British economy is to support the British people in the long-term. Not to make Arabs richer. Not to get certain people on the board of directors after they finished working in government for services rendered. Not to be devalued and sold to the lowest bidder at any opportunity. The country belongs to the British people and it is for their descendents to inherit and enjoy. It is not the cheap plastic Chinese mass-produced toy of a few people in the City to tread on and then throw away when they don't feel like playing with it anymore.

¹ For example: A majority-nuclear energy grid, a large tidal energy program, major public works, military expansion & trident replacement, a space program, large-scale housing construction, rational state investment into agriculture, etc.
² By expansion of areas in which Britain has an obvious comparative advantage.

[The Huskar Social Union]

One of these is not like the other

comign from the person who thinks you can support Turkey, FSA, and Israel at the same time.


Cuck

And so it begins.

[Valaran]

comign from the person who thinks you can support Turkey, FSA, and Israel at the same time.


Cuck

And so it begins.

I propose this NS summer be called the 'summer of cucks'. It seems the new insult of choice.

[Lamadia]

Privatised UK industries mean;
> Little to no burden on the taxpayer provided bailouts are rare and only done when 100% necessary
> To make Britain a player in a global market where nationalised industries do not work unless heavily subsidised & corrupted as seen in China
> Offer new goods & services through increasing competition with other businesses- otherwise, the economy will result like that of the USSR in the late 1980s
> Make a demand for high skilled labour with higher & more generous wages
> Tax revenue from corporations, no matter how small, which can go back into the economy/government spending
> Making the economy seem more attractive to investment, especially from abroad, as it lacks the regulations & control which would make profiteering almost impossible, and would mean that huge taxes would have to be paid to subsidise these industries
> Allow the freedom of enterprise, the press, and guarantee freedoms- if oil is controlled by the state, then why shouldn't the newspapers?
> Allow a range of services/products, at different prices (this is where rail has failed,) rather than just one for all
> Make this country matter, rather than just being a shrinking, nationalised economy with little to no investment, huge taxes & an inability to compete, by making us an important asset on the world stage- if their money is going through us, then we cannot fight

An example is cars. Cars would not have been able to be affordable manufactured as time progressed, as seen with Rover; the privatisation of car industries means advertising industries can advertise these cars, means that factory services can be used to make them, means that franchises can be set up to sell them, cleaning services to clean them, technology companies to add little bits to them... Car companies need investors, need stockholders. If taxes stop these investors from being able to invest, if too many regulations stop them from being able to manufacture without adhering to thousands of expensive laws, then the entire system breaks down, eradicating the cycle which employs millions.


I, and other libertarians, care about the country as well as profit, contrary to what the left think. We believe that the best way to secure economic growth, as seen in the United States, in particular throughout the 20th Century, is to sustain as little taxes as possible to increase investment, increase free enterprise, and allow people the space to make money, so they can reduce unemployment, offer a range of competitive products & generate huge incomes a small part of which goes back into the system. It has worked. The US, Japan, Britain... some of the richest countries in the world, through traditional hard-working capitalism. Quite simply, country comes before profit, but it is wonderful when they can be mixed.

[The Huskar Social Union]

And so it begins.

I propose this NS summer be called the 'summer of cucks'. It seems the new insult of choice.

Yup, its the new right wing insult to throw at people. Especially by teenagers.


That and SJW and PC, they are still prevalent.

[Valaran]

I propose this NS summer be called the 'summer of cucks'. It seems the new insult of choice.

Yup, its the new right wing insult to throw at people. Especially by teenagers.


That and SJW and PC, they are still prevalent.

Yeah. Though I hope its by teenagers, it seems more pathetic if adults use it seriously.

Those won't die for a good while yet.

[The Huskar Social Union]

Yup, its the new right wing insult to throw at people. Especially by teenagers.


That and SJW and PC, they are still prevalent.

Yeah. Though I hope its by teenagers, it seems more pathetic if adults use it seriously.

Those won't die for a good while yet.

Yeah, you know what i might just block anyone new who comes to the forum and starts spewing those as insults the second someone says something they dont agree with. Would make thing soo much simpler as they are clearly not worth taking seriously if they act like that.

[Souseiseki]

> Little to no burden on the taxpayer provided bailouts are rare and only done when 100% necessary

did you pay any attention at all to the previous posts about rail? we give them all the profits and cover the losses. we are being robbed. it is the stupidest shit in the world.

> To make Britain a player in a global market where nationalised industries do not work unless heavily subsidised & corrupted as seen in China

the most cost effective rail line we had in the UK was the one that fell back into government ownership. it was failing under private ownership then we turned it around. why is this? why is one of our biggest players in energy owned by the french government? why is one of the biggest players in freight owned by the german government? why is the dutch government running my buses?

can we call the royal mail an industry as well? because was some grade A bullshit.

> Offer new goods & services through increasing competition with other businesses- otherwise, the economy will result like that of the USSR in the late 1980s

it is impossible to have competition in natural monopolies

> Make a demand for high skilled labour with higher & more generous wages

why? you seem to assume this naturally follows from your premise with no real justification.

> Tax revenue from corporations, no matter how small, which can go back into the economy/government spending

or, you know, we could just make the profits ourselves?

> Making the economy seem more attractive to investment, especially from abroad, as it lacks the regulations & control which would make profiteering almost impossible, and would mean that huge taxes would have to be paid to subsidise these industries

the regulations making profit impossible is the oldest meme around and it has been ridiculous and false in every incarnation.

i'm going to reiterate that rail has not changed. it still requires massive subsidies. all that has changed is who profits from it.

> Allow the freedom of enterprise, the press, and guarantee freedoms- if oil is controlled by the state, then why shouldn't the newspapers?

why does this have to do with industry?

oil is a very effective lubricant for a slippery slope. there are several arguments (necessary industries, natural monopolies, natural resources) that can used to justify nationalizing oil and not newspapers. you pretty much just pulled this one right out of your arse. if the government can own royal mail, what's stopping them from kicking in the suns door tomorrow???

> Allow a range of services/products, at different prices (this is where rail has failed,) rather than just one for all

it's also where energy has failed. and telecoms still requires the government to give them a big push before they make any serious infrastructure improvements. hmm. i'm getting a very bad feeling about this! it's almost like infrastructure is not immediately profitable enough to risk building and since they are still stuck using the same infrastructure competition is very listed. could it be that privatization and the free market is not a magical system that produces the best results in all systems all the time?

> Make this country matter, rather than just being a shrinking, nationalised economy with little to no investment, huge taxes & an inability to compete, by making us an important asset on the world stage- if their money is going through us, then we cannot fight

pure rhetoric

selling off your country to the russians does not make an important asset on the world stage

I, and other libertarians, care about the country as well as profit, contrary to what the left think.

you legitimately don't realize how much you've fucked the country up, do you?

it's good you admit a small part goes back into the system... meaning a large part does not... which is really bad for the economy, actually.

[Valaran]

Yeah. Though I hope its by teenagers, it seems more pathetic if adults use it seriously.

Those won't die for a good while yet.

Yeah, you know what i might just block anyone new who comes to the forum and starts spewing those as insults the second someone says something they dont agree with. Would make thing soo much simpler as they are clearly not worth taking seriously if they act like that.

Sounds prudent. If anyone says stuff like that and has a low post count, my eyes will narrow, but I'm too fond of pointless debating to immediately block people.

[Lamadia]

That's odd, you deliberately misunderstood my post & manipulated it. The Left always seems to do that- they hate the idea of somebody making a success of themselves, so they manipulate the facts, make it suit a small statistic, a small fact, rather than the greater picture, which is the world economy. What do you suppose happens to this country when we nationalise everything, as you want? Do you think the Americans, the Japanese, the Arabs, many of whom own some of these industries, are going to be happy that they are seized so ruthlessly? Do you think foreign investment is going to continue to come in? Do you really think that we can last more than ten years as an isolated state with no investment other than that of a tax-revenue- depraved, overly burdened Treasury?
And if you read the post, then you would realise that I said that rail was the exception which failed. Gosh, so it is true that the Left are manipulative- to the market as well as a post!

[Souseiseki]

That's odd, you deliberately misunderstood my post & manipulated it.

spend less time whining about the left and more time talking details

What do you suppose happens to this country when we nationalise everything, as you want? Do you think the Americans, the Japanese, the Arabs, many of whom own some of these industries, are going to be happy that they are seized so ruthlessly? Do you think foreign investment is going to continue to come in? Do you really think that we can last more than ten years as an isolated state with no investment other than that of a tax-revenue- depraved, overly burdened Treasury?

they could be compensated or the franchises not renewed. we could say they are failing to uphold their promises. we do need to fly the red flag and send the army into post office.

if you want to buy shit on the cheap from an incompetent government selling everything off for a quick buck at below their real value and then consistently underpeform you need to face the reality there is a chance of renationaliation. i do not particularly care if this makes the arabs annoyed.

And if you read the post, then you would realise that I said that rail was the exception which failed. Gosh, so it is true that the Left are manipulative- to the market as well as a post!

you said it failed on one point, not all points. notice how i talked about more than just rail as well. the right, so maniplative!

[Philjia]

Privatised UK industries mean;
> Little to no burden on the taxpayer provided bailouts are rare and only done when 100% necessary

Except when the taxpayers lose out due to privatised services increasing prices, or when the government outsources itself and we have to pay for the inefficiency.

> Offer new goods & services through increasing competition with other businesses- otherwise, the economy will result like that of the USSR in the late 1980s

Shame most markets are neatly sewn up by large multinationals with no space for medium scale players.

> Make a demand for high skilled labour with higher & more generous wages

If you're an in demand skilled worker. Everyone else is fucked.

> Tax revenue from corporations, no matter how small, which can go back into the economy/government spending

Except when the tax revenues don't exist and most tax connected to the company is VAT.

> Making the economy seem more attractive to investment, especially from abroad, as it lacks the regulations & control which would make profiteering almost impossible, and would mean that huge taxes would have to be paid to subsidise these industries

Outside investment is also likely to mean massive foreign corporations coming in and eating all of ours.

> Allow the freedom of enterprise, the press, and guarantee freedoms- if oil is controlled by the state, then why shouldn't the newspapers?

Just because we're economic authoritarians, it doesn't mean we're social authoritarians, and the press are the most corrupt of the lot, as the Leveson inquiry showed.

> Make this country matter, rather than just being a shrinking, nationalised economy with little to no investment, huge taxes & an inability to compete, by making us an important asset on the world stage- if their money is going through us, then we cannot fight

Or a place for corporations to get away with massive amounts of exploitation and corruption unchecked for the benefit of their shareholders and nobody else.

I, and other libertarians, care about the country as well as profit, contrary to what the left think.

You still put massive stock in trickle down economics and are completely phobic of government intervention.

as seen in the United States, in particular throughout the 20th Century

Except that the US contains absolutely shocking levels of poverty. Britain may be in a bad state, but the US is appalling.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

That's odd, you deliberately misunderstood my post & manipulated it. The Left always seems to do that- they hate the idea of somebody making a success of themselves, so they manipulate the facts, make it suit a small statistic, a small fact, rather than the greater picture, which is the world economy. What do you suppose happens to this country when we nationalise everything, as you want? Do you think the Americans, the Japanese, the Arabs, many of whom own some of these industries, are going to be happy that they are seized so ruthlessly? Do you think foreign investment is going to continue to come in? Do you really think that we can last more than ten years as an isolated state with no investment other than that of a tax-revenue- depraved, overly burdened Treasury?
And if you read the post, then you would realise that I said that rail was the exception which failed. Gosh, so it is true that the Left are manipulative- to the market as well as a post!

Uh, what?

[Dooom35796821595]

That's odd, you deliberately misunderstood my post & manipulated it. The Left always seems to do that- they hate the idea of somebody making a success of themselves, so they manipulate the facts, make it suit a small statistic, a small fact, rather than the greater picture, which is the world economy. What do you suppose happens to this country when we nationalise everything, as you want? Do you think the Americans, the Japanese, the Arabs, many of whom own some of these industries, are going to be happy that they are seized so ruthlessly? Do you think foreign investment is going to continue to come in? Do you really think that we can last more than ten years as an isolated state with no investment other than that of a tax-revenue- depraved, overly burdened Treasury?
And if you read the post, then you would realise that I said that rail was the exception which failed. Gosh, so it is true that the Left are manipulative- to the market as well as a post!

Because a multi national company is going to care if a nation has nationalised industries.

No one is saying to nationalise coffee shops and car companies, just the natural monopoly industries like rail, water, power ect.

[Philjia]

That's odd, you deliberately misunderstood my post & manipulated it. The Left always seems to do that- they hate the idea of somebody making a success of themselves, so they manipulate the facts, make it suit a small statistic, a small fact, rather than the greater picture, which is the world economy. What do you suppose happens to this country when we nationalise everything, as you want? Do you think the Americans, the Japanese, the Arabs, many of whom own some of these industries, are going to be happy that they are seized so ruthlessly? Do you think foreign investment is going to continue to come in? Do you really think that we can last more than ten years as an isolated state with no investment other than that of a tax-revenue- depraved, overly burdened Treasury?
And if you read the post, then you would realise that I said that rail was the exception which failed. Gosh, so it is true that the Left are manipulative- to the market as well as a post!

We don't hate success; we hate corruption and the naive assumption that free markets exist. NEWSFLASH: THEY DON'T. They are always strangled. The choice is whether you want the government to do it or multinationals.

Also, let me tell you a little story:
My grandfather grew up in a slum. An actual slum. West end of Newcastle in the second world war. He could have spent his whole life working at Vickers on the factory floor. However, he decided he wanted to do more. He went to night school and learned to be an engineer. When he was called up for national service, he ran away to sea with the merchant navy and travelled the world. When he got back, he got a job with the Department of the Environment, who eventually sent him to Malta, then Cyprus. In Cyprus the army gave him an officer's house because of his importance. He is the reason my mother got to go to university. He worked his way up from nothing, and has worked harder than you, your parents, or I, have worked or will ever work. He voted Labour his entire life because he didn't want anyone to experience the same poverty he did. So, don't you say the Left hate success, you sheltered little Tory.