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

[Kuruinulah]

It was Sadiq the Uncle Tom or a Jew.

[Questers]

Pro: Iran, Russia, Assad, Libertarianism, Jobbik
Anti: NATO

got 'em

[Philjia]

It was Sadiq the Uncle Tom or a Jew.

I have no idea what you're on about but it appears to be racist and anti semitic.

[Souseiseki]

Defence and Aerospace
High-tech manufacturing
Pharmaceuticals
Engineering and allied industries, including car manufacturers

If it isn't broken, don't fix it. The global pharmaceutical industry is worth $300 billion per year, and has a £1.1 billion trade surplus in the UK alone. Car manufacturing, which is almost entirely foreign owned and thus cannot be nationalised plausibly, is one of the world's biggest, and is worth £12.0 billion to the UK economy alone.
Why would you want to break that?

have you considered there may, in actual fact, be more to things than money?

[Lamadia]

If it isn't broken, don't fix it. The global pharmaceutical industry is worth $300 billion per year, and has a £1.1 billion trade surplus in the UK alone. Car manufacturing, which is almost entirely foreign owned and thus cannot be nationalised plausibly, is one of the world's biggest, and is worth £12.0 billion to the UK economy alone.
Why would you want to break that?

have you considered there may, in actual fact, be more to things than money?

But the point of economy is money? We are discussing money? We are discussing how much money is in the economy? Yes, of course there are more things than money in life- there are assets, which can be turned into money.

my father made money with subprime mortages,

I'm all for being able to give people credit but this was one of the things that crashed the economy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bx_LWm6_6tA
At 6:13 of this video, my father's job is explained, rather well. The whole business of subprime mortgages was very unfortunate, however did prosper part-time economic growth. In my view, it was the idea that the government would bailout any major bank in crisis which helped create the crisis, which led to the foolish trade in assets & plans which would only destroy the market.

[Souseiseki]

i am also required to ask whether selling off parts of the country to wealthy foreigners who have no interest beyond extracting money form our country or to the governments of other countries while also setting up several situations where we pay them for the privilege of taking our money may have, in actual fact, been a terrible idea

[Philjia]

have you considered there may, in actual fact, be more to things than money?

But the point of economy is money? We are discussing money? We are discussing how much money is in the economy? Yes, of course there are more things than money in life- there are assets, which can be turned into money.

I'm all for being able to give people credit but this was one of the things that crashed the economy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bx_LWm6_6tA
At 6:13 of this video, my father's job is explained, rather well. The whole business of subprime mortgages was very unfortunate, however did prosper part-time economic growth. In my view, it was the idea that the government would bailout any major bank in crisis which helped create the crisis, which led to the foolish trade in assets & plans which would only destroy the market.

Decisions made in a, er, fairly unregulated free market. If only somebody had said that practical decisions made by individuals may stack up into severe economic problems. Oh wait.

[The Nihilistic view]

You can't just take these sectors away from the companies. Would you pay them? How much? What if they refuse?
Totalitarianism, is what it is. Pure totalitarianism, with a hint of badly thought-up economic theory.

yes you can, no, nothing, boo hoo them. One does not have to pay the companies to nationalizes them.

Anyway as for pharmaceutical companies, there has recently been an out-break of super-gonorrhea in Leeds (Leeds is a former industrial town in the scary, crime ridden north of England btw) which has broken out because no new antibiotics have been made in decades. The reason for that is pharmaceutical companies are unwilling to make them as they are A) Expensive B)promise limited returns. Thus the entire world is facing a crisis of super bugs which we cannot kill because the big private pharma companies are unwilling to spend money to research and produce. This means millions of people's lives are being put at risk by these supposedly benign and cuddly private conglomerates who refuse to make new antibiotics because they may damage profits.

No it's because people have been too freely given antibiotics and have also not been properly finishing the course often enough when given a course to take. Leading to the bacteria to build resistance. It has nothing to do with pharmaceutical companies, they are not responsible for irresponsible use by doctors or patients.

[Elepis]

yes you can, no, nothing, boo hoo them. One does not have to pay the companies to nationalizes them.

Anyway as for pharmaceutical companies, there has recently been an out-break of super-gonorrhea in Leeds (Leeds is a former industrial town in the scary, crime ridden north of England btw) which has broken out because no new antibiotics have been made in decades. The reason for that is pharmaceutical companies are unwilling to make them as they are A) Expensive B)promise limited returns. Thus the entire world is facing a crisis of super bugs which we cannot kill because the big private pharma companies are unwilling to spend money to research and produce. This means millions of people's lives are being put at risk by these supposedly benign and cuddly private conglomerates who refuse to make new antibiotics because they may damage profits.

No it's because people have been too freely given antibiotics and have also not been properly finishing the course often enough when given a course to take. Leading to the bacteria to build resistance. It has nothing to do with pharmaceutical companies, they are not responsible for irresponsible use by doctors or patients.

yes an that was a mistake by the health service and government. But that does not excuse the pharma companies for not producing new drugs to combat the super-bugs. What is the pharma companies fault is refusing to research new drugs because of the limited returns they promise It was a mistake to over-prescribe old drugs but that does not mean people should die for it, which they will unless someone starts producing new antibiotics.

[Sadist France]

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

[Elepis]

have you considered there may, in actual fact, be more to things than money?

But the point of economy is money? We are discussing money? We are discussing how much money is in the economy? Yes, of course there are more things than money in life- there are assets, which can be turned into money.

So money is the be all and end all then?

[Lamadia]

But the point of economy is money? We are discussing money? We are discussing how much money is in the economy? Yes, of course there are more things than money in life- there are assets, which can be turned into money.

So money is the be all and end all then?

In an economy, the price is everything, yes.

[Eastfield Lodge]

So money is the be all and end all then?

In an economy, the price is everything, yes.

So in other words, you would turn a blind eye to atrocities as long as it profited you? Say you're an arms manufacturer, and you know perfectly well that ISIS are buying some of your products, would you still let them do it, because they weren't harming you directly?

[Lamadia]

In an economy, the price is everything, yes.

So in other words, you would turn a blind eye to atrocities as long as it profited you? Say you're an arms manufacturer, and you know perfectly well that ISIS are buying some of your products, would you still let them do it, because they weren't harming you directly?

No, but I would recognise that weapons are to kill, and I am not the killer. But I would not sell to terrorist groups, no, directly, if not due to ethics but to protect myself legally.

[Souseiseki]

So in other words, you would turn a blind eye to atrocities as long as it profited you? Say you're an arms manufacturer, and you know perfectly well that ISIS are buying some of your products, would you still let them do it, because they weren't harming you directly?

No, but I would recognise that weapons are to kill, and I am not the killer. But I would not sell to terrorist groups, no, directly, if not due to ethics but to protect myself legally.

how would you feel about people that did

[Eastfield Lodge]

So in other words, you would turn a blind eye to atrocities as long as it profited you? Say you're an arms manufacturer, and you know perfectly well that ISIS are buying some of your products, would you still let them do it, because they weren't harming you directly?

No, but I would recognise that weapons are to kill, and I am not the killer. But I would not sell to terrorist groups, no, directly, if not due to ethics but to protect myself legally.

So, no moral compass then, got it.

[Vassenor]

So in other words, you would turn a blind eye to atrocities as long as it profited you? Say you're an arms manufacturer, and you know perfectly well that ISIS are buying some of your products, would you still let them do it, because they weren't harming you directly?

No, but I would recognise that weapons are to kill, and I am not the killer. But I would not sell to terrorist groups, no, directly, if not due to ethics but to protect myself legally.

And to governments with a known history of human rights abuses?

[Lamadia]

No, but I would recognise that weapons are to kill, and I am not the killer. But I would not sell to terrorist groups, no, directly, if not due to ethics but to protect myself legally.

how would you feel about people that did

It is totally unethical, especially as these guns are used to kill Western troops & women and children.

[Philjia]

how would you feel about people that did

It is totally unethical, especially as these guns are used to kill Western troops & women and children.

And what happens if, hypothetically, guns move from your customers to the hands of terrorists? Or is what happens to goods once they leave you not a concern?

[Souseiseki]

how would you feel about people that did

It is totally unethical, especially as these guns are used to kill Western troops & women and children.

to use a more specific example, how would you feel about a political party that had a track record of arming brutal dictators, up to and including genocidal ones?

[Lamadia]

It is totally unethical, especially as these guns are used to kill Western troops & women and children.

And what happens if, hypothetically, guns move from your customers to the hands of terrorists? Or is what happens to goods once they leave you not a concern?

If the buyer of the guns then looses them, or sells them, then the company cannot be held to blame.

[Souseiseki]

It is totally unethical, especially as these guns are used to kill Western troops & women and children.

to use a more specific example, how would you feel about a political party that had a track record of arming brutal dictators, up to and including genocidal ones?

i really want to make sure this question isn't missed

[Vassenor]

how would you feel about people that did

It is totally unethical, especially as these guns are used to kill Western troops & women and children.

Because apparently only Western people matter.

[Lamadia]

It is totally unethical, especially as these guns are used to kill Western troops & women and children.

to use a more specific example, how would you feel about a political party that had a track record of arming brutal dictators, up to and including genocidal ones?

I fail to see your question? If they are elected, then the will of the people must be heard and respected.

[Vassenor]

to use a more specific example, how would you feel about a political party that had a track record of arming brutal dictators, up to and including genocidal ones?

I fail to see your question? If they are elected, then the will of the people must be heard and respected.

So you're saying that genocide is OK so long as a show election gives the government perceived legitimacy?