Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Howard and Keith, I'm not referring to Barry's personal views on economy, but his personal bashings at me, calling me a Stalinist and stating that I do not understand economy or anything on whichever topic he chooses to give me a thorough bashing.
At some point one only feels like opting out.
When some people keep calling me an aspiring dictator it comes to the point where I take the affront very personally and will not post any more on economy.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
barryw wins then alexander as he will continue spurting his misguided ideals and you won't be there to question them.
i agree barryw at times goes over the top, but thats barryw and of course im sure our 2 able moderatots paulb and howard if they felt barryw was going to far would warn him off.
whilst we may not agree much alexander your posts are welcome
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
Keith,
I have to agree with Alex.
BarryW gets away with being abusive because of( in your words)
"barryw at times goes over the top, but thats barryw "
Simply because he is BarryW and because he has been doing it for years, does not excuse the insulting remarks he makes towards other posters.That only serves to encourage him.
When he insults me, I will insult him back.
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
There is nobody more abusive on the site than you Gary, time after time highly personal abuse comes from your direction. I attack what is said not individuals personally, find out the difference.
Alexander. You come on here and advocate dictatorial state policies include the state confiscating private assets and object to it being pointed out that you are being Stalinist.... Come off it, what do you expect. If you take up such extremists positions then expect the flack. Many people on this site have also pointed out that you repeatedly misrepresent what is said on the site and you are doing it again in #21.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
In fact, Keith and Gary, if one stands up to Barry's preachings with an intelligent debate to prove something, he won't accept the rules of debate and differing opinions, and will start becoming unconventional.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
oh dear all getting a bit personal, all very unecessary - remember the dull but accurate cliche about playing the ball rather than the man.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Barry, you mention people louting about on their lazy arses getting benefits, and advocate spending cuts, but the society-system you defend doesn't give chances to many people to even get around to doing anything.
You defend the super-rich and the banksters as if anything said about them was directed at you personally!
In reality, these people you defend have taken away the assets of the wider economy, and you think we should all sit here listening to you defending these super-rich and hammering away cannonades at people who you consider are a burden to society..
You are always preaching spending-cuts and throwing people out of their jobs, measures to penalise all society accept those who are too rich to be affected by these spending cuts and mass lay-offs, and I consider this to be advocating theft, the advocating of stealing people's right to live.
In fact you do this all the time, which is why people stand up to you and talk back!
Because many of us, or even some of us, don't like other people cheating us out of the right to live!
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
time to calm down alex, the way i see it you barry and gary either misrepresent each others posts or simply misunderstand each other.
all good posters so there is no need to get uppity with each other.
i hope you were not being serious earlier when you suggested that i sided with barry.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
Question: Why don't I post any more on political or economic threads?
Answers on a postcard please.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
garyc
i fully understand where your coming from, and even accept at times barryw goes over the top and maybe thats something as i said paulb and howard need to look at.
i dont accept barry's last post.
peter; hadn't noticed you wern't posting
lets all put our toys away and play nicely
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Barry, you ought to consider that all King John's barons and their soldiers crossed over to Robin Hood, uniting with the masses of people who followed him, and that Robin Hood and the Common People and the barons and their soldiers made King John sign the Magna Carta.
They do say that the king's personal secretary, a certain Barrie De Willieme, advised the king not to sign, but he did...
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
alexander;
im sure you mean well,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
I don't have any problems with BarryW's politics or views.
I fully understand and endorse, that we are all different and should defend our beliefs and I can accept and want to learn from that side of BarryW's posts.
What I object to is his blindness at reading my post's properly, attacking them off hand, with his wrong interpretation of them.
I detest politics, I detest greed and I detest BarryW's inability to accept that all fraud is wrong, not just benefit cheats.
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Gary - I detest fraud, all fraud too and have never said different.
I do not accept your interpretation of greed, what you call greed is also human nature and the desire to protect and conserve your own assets from government greed and ineptitude that just wastes money hand over fist.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Gary, like you, I too detest politics.
One can suppose the original term politics meant the view of many, but politics as I came to know it meant the view of a few.
My view of economy is that we have a money-based system to facilitate trade, at national and international level, and at individual and family level. But money must always be subordinate to the economy, a means of making it function more easily.
If you imagine a whole cake on the table from which each person among many people should have a share, than clearly there is no way one or two people can each take a giant slice, leaving crumbs for the others, without this being greed and contempt towards the other people entitled to a share of the one and same cake.
In our national economy, some people take massive slices and then take more and more, and others are left with the crumbs.
But, if everyone had "the right" to take a giant slice of the cake (become super-rich by hoarding private assets), obviously there would not be enough cake to go round.
We CANNOT all become financially super-rich, because thee are not enough assets in the world for this to happen.
We would all be sitting there as chief executives or whatever, and no-one would do the manual work.
But we are in a situation where the State and so many of its citizens are so impoverished, and/or bankrupt, and in debt to boot, that many people cannot even work if they want to, because the whole economy is messed up through private asset hoarding.
That's where the original theft took place, when society allowed people to become so over-bloated with greed that they became mentally ill through enriching themselves, so that others became deprived of essential assets (simple food, clothes or essential requirements in general).
The more some people will hoard financial wealth in their private coffers, the more there will be other people being deprived of essential and basic income.
Hoarding assets is a mental illness, and it is the destruction of economy and, ultimately, of society.
The vast majority of people, in Britain and in the world, think like we do, Gary: you, me and so many other common people in this limited world of ours with its limited resources which we are supposed to enjoy and share, and not snatch up with greed and contempt.
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
BarryW.
Define "fraud"?
Define "greed"?
Thankfully, I believe you are in a minority that believe, in your words "what you call greed is also human nature". It probably is in the circles that you live in.
However, most humans think that greed is un-natural, even a deadly sin.
Wikipedia
"Greed is the inordinate desire to possess wealth, goods, or objects of abstract value with the intention to keep it for one's self, far beyond the dictates of basic survival and comfort. It is applied to a markedly high desire for and pursuit of wealth, status, and power.
My interpretation of greed is summed up in the paragraph above, beyond "basic survival and comfort".
Many are struggling to achieve that basic survival and comfort today, when others are lavishing themselves with wealth.
That's not envy, that's not jealousy, in my opinion that's simple greed.
Those in between basic survival and the greedy, are on the whole, doing a very good job of trying to keep the wheels turning, under very difficult circumstances.
Many Bussines's, many bosses and many workers in this country, care about the economy and care about their fellow human being.
Some, IE. The greedy, care not, but for themselves.
Myself and others have offered our interpretation, what's yours?
Or of course, you can continue to ignore or avoid the posts like, DT1 #18, on this thread, like you usually do.
Peter.
I miss your sensible debate on these threads, I suspect my posts are part of your reluctance to join in, so please accept my apologies.
However, I will not become part of the "oh, it's only BarryW ignore him brigade" and I will not apologise for that.
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Gary I am the one saying that there is no 'fair' definition of 'fair' - what is fair to one person is unfair to another.
I consider it grossly unfair that I have to work hard, pay £17k in tax for that money to be given to others to sit on their fat backsides doing nothing through the excessive benefits being paid.
As for greed - without to impulse to gain, accumulate and improve your circumstances we would still be in the stone age. This is one of the basic drivers in life. It is what helps turn small businesses into big businesses with all the wealth and employment they provide. It is why people start businesses. It is why people (most people) work.
If it was just about having what is needed for 'basic survival and comfort' then we should all give up working and be looked after by the benefits system.
Basic comforts are not enough for me and, I suspect, most people. If it was just about that then there would be a lot more unemployed around among those who manufacture and sell high value quality products.
Life would be so boring if we all adopted your idea of what life should be all about. Thankfully the human race is varied and different.
I will tell you something else. It is no business of yours, or indeed mine, what other people are paid unless we are paying the bill through our taxes or as business owners.
Define fraud - obtaining goods or services through deceit. It is a matter of the law. I have never condoned law breaking.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Barry, what about the Public Debt of £1 trillion?
My point was in a recent comment that the Public is responsible for this debt, as all British citizens are part of the British Public.
So when I suggested that the extremely wealthy be made to cough up some of (a part of) their wealth to cover this public debt, you blew your top!
I calculated that by all rights, going by my current savings, I should pay £30 to pay me out of my part of the public debt. I am prepared and willing to pay this (for me significant sum) to the State Treasury to annul the Public Debt.
By all rights, someone with £1 billion in private (not company) assets should pay at least £750 million towards the Public Debt.
That would still leave them with £250 million in personal assets.
I tried to point out that this is not theft, but a Public responsibility to annul our Public Debt..
Now if you are a mathematician as well as an economist, you should be able to calculate what my savings amount to, going by the figures I gave above.
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
Been nice knowing you :)
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
paul,i didnt know you cared so much,or is that your definiation of care in the conmunaty.
