Draconian vacation policies for US slave workers
in [Europe]
|
From: The Reid on 28 Jul 2006 05:12 Following up to Mxsmanic >> what time of the year do most deaths occur in the northern >> hemisphere? > >Weather-related deaths? Summer. so you think all the winter deaths are not weather related, sigh. -- Mike Reid Walk-eat-photos UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site Walk-eat-photos Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
From: The Reid on 28 Jul 2006 05:12 Following up to Padraig Breathnach >>You don't seem to understand that what you just described is called >>"Socialism". >> >By you, obviously. Not by people who understand what socialism is. > >Mike, you know the advice about arguing with an idiot, don't you? I like to find out how the other man thinks, I went through the whole thing with the gun nuts, once. I avoid getting dragged in a second time, or at least get out quick. I think it has gone full course now. Sorry if it made dull reading, I assumed everybody else had dropped out and was concentrating on how many aircon units there are in SE Asia. -- Mike Reid Walk-eat-photos UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site Walk-eat-photos Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
From: The Reid on 28 Jul 2006 05:12 Following up to Tchiowa >"Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the >means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a >centralized government that often plans and controls the economy." not the UK then. >"a political theory advocating state ownership of industry" if you think these definitions are correct I don't see why you think they apply to me or the UK? -- Mike Reid Walk-eat-photos UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site Walk-eat-photos Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
From: The Reid on 28 Jul 2006 05:12 Following up to Tchiowa >> Nonsence, I live and work in a free market capitalist system that >> chooses to fund medical care from taxes, that isnt a failed >> communist state. you dont seem to be able to differentiate the >> two. > >You don't seem to understand that what you just described is called >"Socialism". You continually assert that all socialism has failed, communist economies have failed, yes, "socialised" medicine in capitalist economies haven't. (You probably think Blair is a socialist?). >> I'm looking at economic mechanisms that will be needed in the >> *future*, you are looking at the past, seeing capitalism beat >> communism and basing all your thinking around that one point.. > >Again you demonstrate a basic lack of understanding. Capitalism didn't >"beat" Communism. Communism/Socialism failed all by itself. sigh, more playing with words. Capitalism was successful. Communism wasn't. so the communist countries eventually collapsed and opted for capitalism. You object to "beat", fine. Was it worth saying anymore than the bollox about "have you heard of ice ages"? >Socialism >is a fatally flawed theory and any attempt to implement it will always >fail over time. That has been proven over and over again. Communism failed, you think that proves everything in the world other than pure capitalism must do the same, I dont. Provided there is a strong free market economy (the thing lacking in communist countries) there is no reason not for profit activities cannot be supported where it is felt equity is more important than profit >> Capitalism has to do with profit orientated privately (as opposed >> to state) controlled systems that flourish or fail by levels of >> profit or loss, nothing much else. The new realities may clash >> with that. > >You mean your personal view of reality which has been shown to be more >than a little bit skewed. your best arguments seem to be intentional misunderstanding, nitpicking words and empty assertions that I am just "wrong". >> >Or are you talking about some other form of Capitalism that you forgot >> >to specify and are assuming that people here can read you mind? >> >> Maybe *you* cant comprehend what i'm talking about. For example >> our system depends on growth, one particular example is pension >> fund investment. Growth is going to be in part incompatible with >> reducing pollution. This is a problem. > >Growth is *not* incompatible with reducing pollution. That's what you >don't get. did you understand the words "in part"? Reducing pollution will put a brake on growth, (it wont come free) I know the US right thinks it will find magical technical solutions that will make everything OK without curtailing use of finite rescources and polluting uses, but thats, let us say, optimistic and significantly, not available now. As much as I dislike Blair, at least he has the honesty and intellectual capacity to acknowledge the obvious but unpalatable truth in these matters, unlike Bush. >There is a common term to describe the state in which an organism is no >longer growing. It's called "death". Its called sustainable stability in the case of ecosystems. >Those who demand that the world >quit growing and advancing are promoting yet another guaranteed-to-fail >theory. there you are, you are locked into the idea that growth is the onlt way, at least you demonstrate the problem. Its probably easier to see growth is ultimatly unsustainable if you live in a small but highly developed country, it needs less imagination. Rather than pointlessly arging with me, have a look at projected growth in air traffic and the effect of the asociated emissions as a starting point. Then think of China and India wanting US or western European material standards of living. Then switch off your preconceptions and fixed notions of the only true path and think about growth and finite rescourses. Meanwhile ill take Padraigs advice. -- Mike Reid Walk-eat-photos UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site Walk-eat-photos Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
From: The Reid on 28 Jul 2006 05:12
Following up to Tchiowa >> >Socialism is an economic system where businesses are either owned or >> >controlled by the government, which is *exactly* what the Socialized >> >Medical programs we're discussing are. >> > >> Bollocks. States "own" armies and navies. By such a definition, they >> would be instances of socialism. > >And you were under the impression that armies are a "business"???? then our medical system isn't a business either. If you exclude anything public sector from being a business you just make a nonsense of your own definition. Note to self, don't bother to argue with people who put strings of "????" at the end of alleged points. -- Mike Reid Walk-eat-photos UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site Walk-eat-photos Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap |