The worlds' most powerful leader marches on...

[Doggit]

I think the clenched fist is the defining factor.

Thanks EFL, yes you're right. I was tired, and knew something wasn't quite right, and yes Noseall, more indicative of the communist workers party. My appologies to you both.

 

[EFLImpudence]

I compare your capitalism to a simple game of Monopoly. In the game of Monopoly there is 1x winner after every other player has been made bankrupt.

Monopoly is more like different bankers trying to get all the busines from the rest of the people.

Tell me what can I do in my victory?

Now you are a baron, you can tax the population on their megre scrapings.

There is a 3rd way. The way that gets the most negative hammering from your MSM of choice.
Do you know which way that is?

Socialism, I suppose - unless you are classing that with so-called communism.

 

[Doggit]

Socialism, capitalism, communism, all just different isms, and they never work, no matter what type they are.

Capitalism doesn't properly support those at the bottom and Socialism dags down those at the top, whereas Communism, drags everybody but those at the top down.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Capitalism doesn't properly support those at the bottom

It's not supposed to. They don't care.
As long as enough have the means to make the wealthy wealthier, it is succeeding.

and Socialism dags down those at the top,

If you substitute a less emotive phrase for "drags down" it may be good.
They could confiscate the sea-bed from the Queen, for instance.
Would that be "dragging down"?

whereas Communism, drags everybody but those at the top down.

By definition, that wasn't communism.

 

[Doggit]

They could confiscate the sea-bed from the Queen, for instance.
Would that be "dragging down"?

The Queen doesn't really own the sea bed, the crown estate does, and all the money received by the crown estate goes to the treasury. They handed over the income they receive along time ago, in return for a support grant from the govenment.

By definition, that wasn't communism

I know, but that's just one of the problems with anyone in charge. Great intentions to start with, and then absolute power currupts absolutely.

Now show me a communist country that actually follows the true tenents of what Comunism should be.

 

[Roger928]

They don't care

Who doesn't care?

The point is, ladies and gentleman, that greed, for lack of a better word, is good.
Gordon Gekko
https://fee.org/articles/capitalism-is-good-for-the-poor/

 

[Doggit]

Actually, capitalism is by far the best system, as long as it's tempered by a degree of socialsim, and this is where both parties go wrong. Unchecked capitalism IS greed, but unless an economy makes money, then it isn't there to support those that need it. Labour (and a lot on this site) bang on about the rich and the wealthy and how they should have their knees chopped off, but without those people striving to do better, they wouldn't be running bussiness's that employ people. Yes, there are companies like Sports Direct where the MD should be taken round the back of the offices and given a good "talking" to, but most business's play fair, pay good wages and good pensions, look after the staff, and more besides. So why is it that any company that does well for itself is considered to be bad for the economy, and should be dragged down. There'll always be those that need dealing with, but that doesn't mean to say that capitalism should be abolished.

 

[transam]

Actually, capitalism is by far the best system, as long as it's tempered by a degree of socialsim, and this is where both parties go wrong. Unchecked capitalism IS greed, but unless an economy makes money, then it isn't there to support those that need it. Labour (and a lot on this site) bang on about the rich and the wealthy and how they should have their knees chopped off, but without those people striving to do better, they wouldn't be running bussiness's that employ people. Yes, there are companies like Sports Direct where the MD should be taken round the back of the offices and given a good "talking" to, but most business's play fair, pay good wages and good pensions, look after the staff, and more besides. So why is it that any company that does well for itself is considered to be bad for the economy, and should be dragged down. There'll always be those that need dealing with, but that doesn't mean to say that capitalism should be abolished.

And a lot on this site bang on about rich & wealthy & how they should have there legs chopped off etc etc

They all do the lottery or have done

 

[JohnD]

And a lot on this site bang on about rich & wealthy & how they should have there legs chopped off etc etc

That's terrible (if it's true)

Can you show us a few examples? (if it's true)

 

[EFLImpudence]

The Queen doesn't really own the sea bed,

As monarch, she does.
According to Wikipedia,

the crown estate does,

No, it just manages them.
"the sovereign is not involved with the management or administration of the estate, exercising only very limited control of its affairs".
No, Ma'am, that's a crap idea; go away.

and all the money received by the crown estate goes to the treasury. They handed over the income they receive along time ago, in return for a support grant from the govenment.

Yes, the income from them less 15%, since 2012 instead of the civil list.


Just as a matter of interest; I take it, then, that this is one 'nationalised' industry that is not minded by conservatives and not one which will be privatised.

 

[transam]

That's terrible (if it's true)

Can you show us a few examples? (if it's true)

read the post correctly it was quote from a part of doggits post .

Even a Mongolian goat herder would work that out . And don't forget to get your lottery ticket this week

you can donate your winnings to the Labour party

 

[Doggit]

Just as a matter of interest; I take it, then, that this is one 'nationalised' industry that is not minded by conservatives and not one which will be privatised.

Interesting perspective on it EFL, and I suspect you're right, the conservatives wouldn't renationalise it, but Labour would abolish it.

As monarch, she does

As in a lot of things regarding the monarch, parliment, and the country. The Queen is the titular head of everything, but the PM of the day has to go and ask her to disolve parliment; she has the right to do it on her own, but would never be able to do it herself if she wished to. She may technically own the sea bed, but apart for the 15% refund, never sees or has any control over the revenues that it generates. And that's one of the nice archaic traditions of this country; everyone politely agrees not to discuss the subtle oddities of the way we do things.

 

[JohnD]

read the post correctly it was quote from a part of doggits post .

So both you and Doggit have used the claim about "a lot on this site" calling for chopping people's legs (or knees) off.

So I ask both of you to provide a few examples (if true)

I do realise that it may not be true, in which case you will be unable to provide examples.

FYI I have moral objections to gambling, and especially the Lottery, so this is not something I engage with.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Interesting perspective on it EFL, and I suspect you're right, the conservatives wouldn't renationalise it, but Labour would abolish it.

Well, you can't abolish it as such, someone has to manage it.
As it is already nationalised, I suppose Labour could keep the 15% as well.

As in a lot of things regarding the monarch, parliment, and the country. The Queen is the titular head of everything, but the PM of the day has to go and ask her to disolve parliment; she has the right to do it on her own, but would never be able to do it herself if she wished to.

Didn't she do it to Australia?
The weekly visit from the P.M. - just tea?

She may technically own the sea bed, but apart for the 15% refund, never sees or has any control over the revenues that it generates. And that's one of the nice archaic traditions of this country; everyone politely agrees not to discuss the subtle oddities of the way we do things.

No technically about it.
I don't know how much she deals with it. I don't imagine she is ignored should she wish to do something.
Can you imagine Charles having little to do with it if he wanted something done?

 

[Doggit]

Charles will carry on being a thorn in peoples side, until he becomes King (if he ever does of course) and then he'll keep his views pretty much to himself. Cameron let slip that the Queen was pleased at the Brexit result, and she was not pleased that he'd let her private views become public knowledge. The Queen is just a figure head, nothing more. She doesn't have any say in the running of government, nor anything to do with the crown estates. She signs things put in front of her, and knows her place in the scheme of things.

As to weekly visits from the PM, I believe he updates her on the current state of things, but she's politically neutral, and just goes along with what Parliment suggests, even if she may express her view on things.