Take it with a pinch of salt, but the reports are written in such a way to suggest that he's benefitting from the arrangement by paying it offshore, and reducing his rent to 'only' £118k a year for a house worth a few million. Effectively about half of what the rent should be for the property.
Russell Brand - Moving Right
- Thread starter Pogue Mahone
- Start date
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Take it with a pinch of salt, but the reports are written in such a way to suggest that he's benefitting from the arrangement by paying it offshore, and reducing his rent to 'only' £118k a year for a house worth a few million. Effectively about half of what the rent should be for the property.
Pogue Mahone
Swiftie Fan Club President
Take it with a pinch of salt, but the reports are written in such a way to suggest that he's benefitting from the arrangement by paying it offshore, and reducing his rent to 'only' £118k a year for a house worth a few million. Effectively about half of what the rent should be for the property.
Have you got a link to those reports? He's living in a loft apartment in the east end of London. £118k per year rental sounds excessive, if anything. Even by London standards.
Kylar Stern
Full Member
Have you got a link to those reports? He's living in a loft apartment in the east end of London. £118k per year rental sounds excessive, if anything. Even by London standards.
I read it in a couple of newspapers over the last few days; I'll see if I can find something online and post it.
CircusMonkey
Full Member
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2007
- Messages
- 1,227
I think Brand is still at conflict with himself, after reading his book, he comes across as being as being chaotic and naive.
The revolution will not be televised, unfortunately.
The revolution will not be televised, unfortunately.
I don't see why you want to hold a comedian, who often speaks sense even if he doesn't always have concrete solutions, to a higher standard that the people who rule us. Sounds like an excuse to go with the status quo IMO.
Take it with a pinch of salt, but the reports are written in such a way to suggest that he's benefitting from the arrangement by paying it offshore, and reducing his rent to 'only' £118k a year for a house worth a few million. Effectively about half of what the rent should be for the property.
What? 10k per month is half the market value? Really?
Kylar Stern
Full Member
What? 10k per month is half the market value? Really?
I'm not a London property guru by any means and have no idea how much the property would be worth myself, as I have said before I'm passing on the reports as I have seen them to debate their merit.
What I do know is that Shoreditch where he rents is pretty widely known as the trendiest area of London these days, and his property is a 3 bedroom flat in a converted warehouse and is a few minutes walk from the City. I can't see it being all that cheap to be fair? Who knows.
Russell Brand; bit of a twat, although he seems to be a genuinely nice guy with his heart in the right place. But to me this continues to be the finest summation of all that he represents:
I'm not a London property guru by any means and have no idea how much the property would be worth myself, as I have said before I'm passing on the reports as I have seen them to debate their merit.
What I do know is that Shoreditch where he rents is pretty widely known as the trendiest area of London these days, and his property is a 3 bedroom flat in a converted warehouse and is a few minutes walk from the City. I can't see it being all that cheap to be fair? Who knows.
10k per month isn't even close to being cheap even in Shoreditch. I'd have guessed that 10k per month was 3 or 4 times the average for a 3 bed flat.
Zarlak
my face causes global warming
The amount I saw quoted was 5k a month not 10k. 60k a year.
Archie Leach
Gooner
One of my friends rents a massive three bedroom, three storey place in Angel for 800 a week. His price seems pretty standard. Also a landlord wouldn't tax evade to give their tenant a good deal, they'd do it to avoid paying tax.I'm not a London property guru by any means and have no idea how much the property would be worth myself, as I have said before I'm passing on the reports as I have seen them to debate their merit.
What I do know is that Shoreditch where he rents is pretty widely known as the trendiest area of London these days, and his property is a 3 bedroom flat in a converted warehouse and is a few minutes walk from the City. I can't see it being all that cheap to be fair? Who knows.
Kylar Stern
Full Member
The amount I saw quoted was 5k a month not 10k. 60k a year.
Fair enough, the British press strike again it seems!
Russell Brand; bit of a twat, although he seems to be a genuinely nice guy with his heart in the right place. But to me this continues to be the finest summation of all that he represents:
He is very open to having the piss taken out of him and I'm all for piss take. My only issue with that song is that it isn't very amusing at all.
I always get a sense of sprezzatura about Brand in the way he conducts himself, he wants us to think it all comes so naturally to him, but in actual fact he's trying very hard to look and sound highly intelligent and articulate. I do believe he's a clever guy, and I don't get why anyone would try to claim he's 'dumb'. He's not dumb at all.
I quite like him, but I don't like the idea that he is some kind of spokesmen for the people. He's trying to assume this role of anarchistic revolutionary leader, but those ideas have been around for a long time, and the anarchists don't want him to speak for them. Most of them think he's a dick.
Despite liking him, to be honest, he is a bit of a cnut. So if we do end up doing away with this capitalist system anytime soon, due to it's mass failure, then I'd like to think whoever we decide to 'follow', whoever picks up the pieces and says "let's do it this way instead", is actually quite a decent person, or people. Brand is just some eccentric celebrity who's rehashing stuff he's read or seen by Chomsky and Bill Hicks, so the thought of people following him anywhere is rather worrying to me. To be fair, that idea is probably just something the press propogated, and now they come out with inevitable diatribe pushing back against him.
I agree with those who say he's a hypocrite, but it doesn't bother me. If the causes he's trying to help do actually benefit from the exposure his fames gives them, then I don't have a problem with it. It's a bit like celebrities who give large sums of money to charity to boost their own 'brand' (lol) and sense of self-worth. If it ends up feeding a bunch of skinny kids in Africa who otherwise would've starved, I'm all for it. It's not as if celebrities 'doing good' is a zero-sum game where they benefits they receive are taken from the people they are helping.
Just one last thing I wanted to mention. I don't actually see a lot of Brand aside from the odd clip on facebook, but from what I've seen some of his 'ideas', if you can call them that, do have some merit. I don't think for a second it's feasible to do away with captalism and replace it with anarchism, unless we have some major catastrophy like all-out Nuclear war, and even then I think it wouldn't last that long. But... I do think we could have much more public driven decision making at a localized level, as I've seen Brand advocate once or twice in small clips. That is one small practical change we could make that could have a positive effect on communities, and it doesn't require a revolution to make it.
I quite like him, but I don't like the idea that he is some kind of spokesmen for the people. He's trying to assume this role of anarchistic revolutionary leader, but those ideas have been around for a long time, and the anarchists don't want him to speak for them. Most of them think he's a dick.
Despite liking him, to be honest, he is a bit of a cnut. So if we do end up doing away with this capitalist system anytime soon, due to it's mass failure, then I'd like to think whoever we decide to 'follow', whoever picks up the pieces and says "let's do it this way instead", is actually quite a decent person, or people. Brand is just some eccentric celebrity who's rehashing stuff he's read or seen by Chomsky and Bill Hicks, so the thought of people following him anywhere is rather worrying to me. To be fair, that idea is probably just something the press propogated, and now they come out with inevitable diatribe pushing back against him.
I agree with those who say he's a hypocrite, but it doesn't bother me. If the causes he's trying to help do actually benefit from the exposure his fames gives them, then I don't have a problem with it. It's a bit like celebrities who give large sums of money to charity to boost their own 'brand' (lol) and sense of self-worth. If it ends up feeding a bunch of skinny kids in Africa who otherwise would've starved, I'm all for it. It's not as if celebrities 'doing good' is a zero-sum game where they benefits they receive are taken from the people they are helping.
Just one last thing I wanted to mention. I don't actually see a lot of Brand aside from the odd clip on facebook, but from what I've seen some of his 'ideas', if you can call them that, do have some merit. I don't think for a second it's feasible to do away with captalism and replace it with anarchism, unless we have some major catastrophy like all-out Nuclear war, and even then I think it wouldn't last that long. But... I do think we could have much more public driven decision making at a localized level, as I've seen Brand advocate once or twice in small clips. That is one small practical change we could make that could have a positive effect on communities, and it doesn't require a revolution to make it.
JohnLocke
Full Member
I haven't posted on here in ages, for a variety of reasons, but just thought I'd have a look in the other threads and saw this one. Over the last few months I’ve watched all the episodes of the Trews and I think Russell Brand should be commended for his effort in raising public awareness of many things that aren’t usually discussed by the average Joe in the street or by the mainstream media.
I actually thought a few weeks back that he would probably start to receive some sort of backlash for doing what he’s doing; promoting a left wing anti-capitalist view point that seems to have a growing audience, and it hasn’t taken long for it to start up. I hope it’s just a flash in the pan kind of thing because I believe that his heart is in the right place and he shouldn't be getting vilified for it.
Fair enough he’s not to everyone’s liking. I liked his Radio 2 show years ago, but don’t find him particularly funny when he’s doing stand up, I don’t like his style of interviewing on the Trews, sometimes he’s a bit wordy for the sake of being wordy and is a bit too simplistic for my liking at times. But so what? He’s not claiming to be a lecturer on world politics, he wants to be a voice to people who have no voice and I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that at all.
I bet if you speak to the people on the New Era Estate every single one of them will tell you that he’s been a godsend to them. That’s 92 families he’s helping out and fair play to him for it. He’s going to be helping the plight of the Fire Brigades Union again too and who knows what else.
We are all hypocrites to a certain degree or another and he’s no different to any of us in that regard, he’s said the same himself. He’s not claiming to have all the answers either so I don’t know why he’s getting a bad press for that.
Capitalism is failing, well it’s actually doing what it’s supposed to have done, but people will soon start to realise that the end is coming and we need to seriously start thinking of new systems and frameworks in which we can live together, even though it’s become a massive step to think outside of the neoliberal capitalist bowl that we now live and die in.
Russell promotes equality, peace and the protection of the environment, and at least he is doing something about it. I think history (if there is one in the future) will look very unkindly on us for what we have allowed to happen. I was just thinking yesterday that when we look back on history we sometimes think “why didn’t the general population do anything to stop that” and now we are that population. It’s a sorry state of affairs out there and things are only going to get worse, so it’s neigh on time that we did something about it.
I’m a hypocrite and you’re a hypocrite too, but that doesn’t mean we can’t do something to change the way things are.
Sorry if that’s a bit long and all over the place as well.
I actually thought a few weeks back that he would probably start to receive some sort of backlash for doing what he’s doing; promoting a left wing anti-capitalist view point that seems to have a growing audience, and it hasn’t taken long for it to start up. I hope it’s just a flash in the pan kind of thing because I believe that his heart is in the right place and he shouldn't be getting vilified for it.
Fair enough he’s not to everyone’s liking. I liked his Radio 2 show years ago, but don’t find him particularly funny when he’s doing stand up, I don’t like his style of interviewing on the Trews, sometimes he’s a bit wordy for the sake of being wordy and is a bit too simplistic for my liking at times. But so what? He’s not claiming to be a lecturer on world politics, he wants to be a voice to people who have no voice and I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that at all.
I bet if you speak to the people on the New Era Estate every single one of them will tell you that he’s been a godsend to them. That’s 92 families he’s helping out and fair play to him for it. He’s going to be helping the plight of the Fire Brigades Union again too and who knows what else.
We are all hypocrites to a certain degree or another and he’s no different to any of us in that regard, he’s said the same himself. He’s not claiming to have all the answers either so I don’t know why he’s getting a bad press for that.
Capitalism is failing, well it’s actually doing what it’s supposed to have done, but people will soon start to realise that the end is coming and we need to seriously start thinking of new systems and frameworks in which we can live together, even though it’s become a massive step to think outside of the neoliberal capitalist bowl that we now live and die in.
Russell promotes equality, peace and the protection of the environment, and at least he is doing something about it. I think history (if there is one in the future) will look very unkindly on us for what we have allowed to happen. I was just thinking yesterday that when we look back on history we sometimes think “why didn’t the general population do anything to stop that” and now we are that population. It’s a sorry state of affairs out there and things are only going to get worse, so it’s neigh on time that we did something about it.
I’m a hypocrite and you’re a hypocrite too, but that doesn’t mean we can’t do something to change the way things are.
Sorry if that’s a bit long and all over the place as well.
MajorTom
New Member
Alternative media is growing rapidly, mostly because people can see through the propaganda/agenda of the major news corporations. It's easy to spot their narrative and everyone is getting annoyed of being spoon fed snippets of truth mixed in with political agenda to gain public support.
I heard about Brand going into this about five years ago and I wouldn't trust him with a barge pole. He is proclaiming himself as Robin Hood (you can see this in one of his recent twitter posts) although he hasn't given a single penny to anybody and self-promotes at every opportunity. He is just talking about anti-capitalism and pre-programming the masses to be against it for whatever system is going to be introduced worldwide as borders continue to be eradicated.
Capitalism isn't a great deal of decades away from collapsing as you can see from the debt level of every single country. I'm far from a subscriber to capitalism myself but there will be a point in time where he and many others like him in alternative media will all be pushing for the same system because they're not organic with their direction. For the time being though the Pied Piper is playing a good tune in his anti-capitalism narrative without suggesting what alternative system he supports.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/world-debt-clock.html
I heard about Brand going into this about five years ago and I wouldn't trust him with a barge pole. He is proclaiming himself as Robin Hood (you can see this in one of his recent twitter posts) although he hasn't given a single penny to anybody and self-promotes at every opportunity. He is just talking about anti-capitalism and pre-programming the masses to be against it for whatever system is going to be introduced worldwide as borders continue to be eradicated.
Capitalism isn't a great deal of decades away from collapsing as you can see from the debt level of every single country. I'm far from a subscriber to capitalism myself but there will be a point in time where he and many others like him in alternative media will all be pushing for the same system because they're not organic with their direction. For the time being though the Pied Piper is playing a good tune in his anti-capitalism narrative without suggesting what alternative system he supports.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/world-debt-clock.html
Eboue
nasty little twerp with crazy bitter-man opinions
What exactly do you mean by capitalism collapsing
MajorTom
New Member
Exactly what the definition of collapsing means - crumbles, falls down, fails. Over the course of the past fifty years it has reached levels that are too far gone to recover. Plastering over plaster no longer works and only exaggerates the eventual failure even more. Once machines get to their full potential then over 50% percent of jobs won't exist anyway (maintaining those machines will be done by other machines and not humans) so the current monetary system will be of no use. It will have to move to a marxist society whether that be more socialist or communist, without a shadow of a doubt. Poverty is already a massive problem in developed countries (not to mention developing countries) with good job prospects so once jobs start to eradicate in those economies than capitalism will serve no purpose as not a great deal of people will have any money to spend. Not that they do anyway but consumerism is on its last legs.
Eboue
nasty little twerp with crazy bitter-man opinions
Do you write science fiction?
MajorTom
New Member
So you believe capitalism is thriving and will continue for x amount of years? Money is nothing but a concept, it isn't real and the sooner everyone stops subscribing to it the better.
So you believe capitalism is thriving and will continue for x amount of years? Money is nothing but a concept, it isn't real and the sooner everyone stops subscribing to it the better.
But that measure everything is merely a concept and not real. Unfortunately that's not how things work in the "real" world. If anything, capitalism is further entrenching itself globally rather than showing any signs of slowing down.
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2009
- Messages
- 58,224
Yep and billed as middle class, so posher folk can basically eat fish fingers without feeling pleb-ish.Aren't they funny shaped fish fingers?
Eboue
nasty little twerp with crazy bitter-man opinions
So you believe capitalism is thriving and will continue for x amount of years? Money is nothing but a concept, it isn't real and the sooner everyone stops subscribing to it the better.
I don't think anything is perfect but you sound like Jaden Smith taking writing lessons from Robert Heinlein.
What does the part about money even mean? Do you want us to return to subsistence farming and bartering? Life is better than it has ever been for more people than ever before.
MajorTom
New Member
But that measure everything is merely a concept and not real. Unfortunately that's not how things work in the "real" world. If anything, capitalism is further entrenching itself globally rather than showing any signs of slowing down.
Based on what? Based on debt? It's a ponzi scheme, the true ponzi scheme. Capitalism means that for someone/something to thrive that someone/something has to suffer. If you think that is a good system then it shows the capabilities of critical thinking still has a very long way to go. Of course most things are concepts but money is a concept that should be crushed and there will be a point in time where it will be.
MajorTom
New Member
I don't think anything is perfect but you sound like Jaden Smith taking writing lessons from Robert Heinlein.
That is a cop out of a response. I haven't said my eyes aren't real or some stupid shit. It is very much common sense, if you want to break it down then please do so.
Based on what? Based on debt? It's a ponzi scheme, the true ponzi scheme. Capitalism means that for someone/something to thrive that someone/something has to suffer. If you think that is a good system then it shows the capabilities of critical thinking still has a very long way to go. Of course most things are concepts but money is a concept that should be crushed and there will be a point in time where it will be.
Rather than spend your time on this idealistic babble - can you propose a viable system that could replace it - that would be accepted by current governments ?
Eboue
nasty little twerp with crazy bitter-man opinions
That is a cop out of a response. I haven't said my eyes aren't real or some stupid shit. It is very much common sense, if you want to break it down then please do so.
See my edit.
MajorTom
New Member
Rather than spend your time on this idealistic babble - can you propose a viable system that could replace it - that would be accepted by current governments ?
Babble? What is babble is saying something isn't real but is real. The biggest doublethink I've ever read. Listen, nothing I have said should offend anyone or get their backs up against the wall. Insults shouldn't really be coming my way either unless subconsciously you realise it is true and you work for absolutely nothing so it makes you agitated. Socialism will be the ideal system as we continue to progress with technology.
Babble? What is babble is saying something isn't real but is real. The biggest doublethink I've ever read. Listen, nothing I have said should offend anyone or get their backs up against the wall. Insults shouldn't really be coming my way either unless subconsciously you realise it is true and you work for absolutely nothing so it makes you agitated. Socialism will be the ideal system as we continue to progress with technology.
Babble isn't an insult, merely an interpretation of your idealistic rambling that offers plenty of finger pointing but no solutions.
As for socialism - it seems to be on the wane over the past 20 years or so. Whereas capital markets seem increasingly influential in growing global wealth. The fact that the wealth is not reaching the developing world is a problem that needs to be tackled head on, not by dumping the entire system but by identifying ways to empower developing economies.
Eboue
nasty little twerp with crazy bitter-man opinions
Babble? What is babble is saying something isn't real but is real. The biggest doublethink I've ever read. Listen, nothing I have said should offend anyone or get their backs up against the wall. Insults shouldn't really be coming my way either unless subconsciously you realise it is true and you work for absolutely nothing so it makes you agitated. Socialism will be the ideal system as we continue to progress with technology.
Who is offended? I'm amused. Why hasn't socialism been successful thus far and what do you think is going to change to make it so?
Pogue Mahone
Swiftie Fan Club President
So you believe capitalism is thriving and will continue for x amount of years? Money is nothing but a concept, it isn't real and the sooner everyone stops subscribing to it the better.
Yet it's been around (in various forms) for at least 10000 years. What's your timeframe for it ceasing to exist?
Mockney
Not the only poster to be named Poster of the Year
I'm interested in what people who think Brand is being horribly hypocritical feel he should be doing about his living situation? Live in a cheaper property? (potentially taking it away from someone who needs it far more just so a rich man can 'slum pose') Actually buy a house? (contributing far more to the underlying problem of house prices) leave the city? (and be accused of popping in and out at his own convenience) or even the country? (negating his right to tell anyone here how to live) or perhaps invent some kind of flying hoverbed that he can float majestically over the city on at all times being both hypocrite proof and geuinely messiah-like?
Once again I can't stress enough how few answers I think Brand has or how he's in no way a genuine font of wisdom. But this whole whitch hunt seems like very simplistic soundbyte scapegoating (from the latin: Tabloidius Reporticus.) because it doesn't even try to take into consideration how life actually works. It's just shit-flinging smugness.
Not to mention that it's deliberately obfuscating an important issue just so people can feel a bit superior to a celeb. The same kind of logic dictates David Cameron shouldn't have an opinion on the housing crisis because he's a toff who contributes to it. Good idea that, it'll get us far.
Once again I can't stress enough how few answers I think Brand has or how he's in no way a genuine font of wisdom. But this whole whitch hunt seems like very simplistic soundbyte scapegoating (from the latin: Tabloidius Reporticus.) because it doesn't even try to take into consideration how life actually works. It's just shit-flinging smugness.
Not to mention that it's deliberately obfuscating an important issue just so people can feel a bit superior to a celeb. The same kind of logic dictates David Cameron shouldn't have an opinion on the housing crisis because he's a toff who contributes to it. Good idea that, it'll get us far.
Last edited:
George Owen
LEAVE THE SFW THREAD ALONE!!1!
Rather than spend your time on this idealistic babble - can you propose a viable system that could replace it - that would be accepted by current governments ?
Capitalism is not the problem. The problem is when no one (government=people) controls the private sector. Thanks to capitalism, business men are more powerful than the people and politicians, and because the law is already on their side, they will fight with teeth and nails to prevent any change to the system. They have zero social conscience.
Take for example Chile, the most neo liberal country in the world, where everything is for sale. water, education, health, etc etc...
check out their gini coefficient... the levels of equality are on the same levels as african countries. its ridiculous.
For me, the system doesn't need to change completely, but it needs to be controlled and have some boundaries. Germany is a good example.
edit. im all in for Russell Brand to keep raising awareness to important issues people sometimes think can't change, when of course it can be changed.
Last edited:
Capitalism is not the problem. The problem is when no one (government=people) controls the private sector. Thanks to capitalism, business men are more powerful than the people and politicians, and because the law is already on their side, they will fight with teeth and nails to prevent any change to the system. They have zero social conscience.
Take for example Chile, the most neo liberal country in the world, where everything is for sale. water, education, health, etc etc...
check out their gini coefficient... the levels of equality are on the same levels as african countries. its ridiculous.
For me, the system doesn't need to change completely, but it needs to be controlled and have some boundaries. Germany is a good example.
edit. im all in for Russell Brand to keep raising awareness to important issues people sometimes think can't change, when of course it can be changed.
I agree with all of that. The system definitely needs a tighter set of checks and balances to ensure there is less abuse. Brand raising issues doesn't bother me at all, in fact I think its a good thing. What i find underwhelming is him pointing out problems without offering solutions. The exchange he had with Paxman on voting was particularly silly.
JohnLocke
Full Member
The current system clearly isn’t working and it can’t continue in it’s current form. Every day more and more power is being moved from the political sphere (which is supposed to represent the ideals and needs of it’s citizens) to the financial / corporate sphere. The TTIP power grab is the latest way for them to gain more power at the expense of the government and general population. (This is actually a very real thing and needs to be stopped, rather than dismissed as a flavor of the month political topic)
This ideology has led to an unprecedented increase in poverty, public services are being ripped to shreds, welfare in all of it’s forms is taking a hammering in the UK, debt is being burdened upon the general public (as is always the case) to make sure that the financial institutions continue to gain more power under the guise of Austerity (for the poor, obviously not Austerity for the rich). Credit has been burdened onto the public to pull more money out of us and what’s the next stage after we have nothing left? No spending or more debt? Or lets try something different? This isn’t a UK problem either, it’s a world wide capitalist problem. Over here we have austerity and rising social inequality and no growth. Or we have countries like India and Brazil etc that have the growth but also a problem with inflation, and their growth is unsustainable on a global scale.
What exactly that different thing is will have to be looked into closely, Thatcher said “there is nothing else” (or words to that effect), but the boom and bust and government bailouts have had their day, and now the general public are paying for it, again. In a crisis the only people to benefit are large corporations and the banks, everyone else gets it in the eye.
Basically everything is going in the wrong direction and it can’t continue for much longer. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer and social inequality is off the agenda, so you can’t really speak about it. Equality for race and gender etc. are all on the table, but you can’t say that there are massive levels of social inequality and for the most part if you are born poor you will die poor and visa versa. But you can’t talk about that because the people that own everything won’t let us. Sounds silly but it appears to be true. When was the last time you saw something about a living wage for people or some way of promoting more financial equality on the news or in the papers?
The environment is being ravaged as well. Once global warming starts to really kick in (and it will) there are going to be severe global consequences for all of us. That is a fact. Apparently we were supposed to be looking at a maximum rise of 2 degrees if we did something about it in the late 1980’s but we’ve done bugger all, and in most cases made it worse, so now we are supposed to be hoping to 4-6 degrees if we act now, and that means severe changes to us all, because 4-6 degrees was deemed as catastrophic back then and now it’s what we are aiming for. The only ones who deny that it’s going to happen are the ones who are making money now.
Capitalism is done for. And there’s far more wrong with it than what I’ve just said and could be articulated and presented in a much better way than I’ve done too, but that’s my general take on why it’s done for.
Apologies again if some of my numbers are slightly off, but the bare bones of what I said are true, IMO anyway.
A part solution is to stop having all the (massive) profits of everything siphoned off into the hands of a few people? The people that make the profit also make the things we buy and pay our wages, so how do they pay our wages, make stuff and still make serious profit? Debt.
(Edited for spacing)
This ideology has led to an unprecedented increase in poverty, public services are being ripped to shreds, welfare in all of it’s forms is taking a hammering in the UK, debt is being burdened upon the general public (as is always the case) to make sure that the financial institutions continue to gain more power under the guise of Austerity (for the poor, obviously not Austerity for the rich). Credit has been burdened onto the public to pull more money out of us and what’s the next stage after we have nothing left? No spending or more debt? Or lets try something different? This isn’t a UK problem either, it’s a world wide capitalist problem. Over here we have austerity and rising social inequality and no growth. Or we have countries like India and Brazil etc that have the growth but also a problem with inflation, and their growth is unsustainable on a global scale.
What exactly that different thing is will have to be looked into closely, Thatcher said “there is nothing else” (or words to that effect), but the boom and bust and government bailouts have had their day, and now the general public are paying for it, again. In a crisis the only people to benefit are large corporations and the banks, everyone else gets it in the eye.
Basically everything is going in the wrong direction and it can’t continue for much longer. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer and social inequality is off the agenda, so you can’t really speak about it. Equality for race and gender etc. are all on the table, but you can’t say that there are massive levels of social inequality and for the most part if you are born poor you will die poor and visa versa. But you can’t talk about that because the people that own everything won’t let us. Sounds silly but it appears to be true. When was the last time you saw something about a living wage for people or some way of promoting more financial equality on the news or in the papers?
The environment is being ravaged as well. Once global warming starts to really kick in (and it will) there are going to be severe global consequences for all of us. That is a fact. Apparently we were supposed to be looking at a maximum rise of 2 degrees if we did something about it in the late 1980’s but we’ve done bugger all, and in most cases made it worse, so now we are supposed to be hoping to 4-6 degrees if we act now, and that means severe changes to us all, because 4-6 degrees was deemed as catastrophic back then and now it’s what we are aiming for. The only ones who deny that it’s going to happen are the ones who are making money now.
Capitalism is done for. And there’s far more wrong with it than what I’ve just said and could be articulated and presented in a much better way than I’ve done too, but that’s my general take on why it’s done for.
Apologies again if some of my numbers are slightly off, but the bare bones of what I said are true, IMO anyway.
A part solution is to stop having all the (massive) profits of everything siphoned off into the hands of a few people? The people that make the profit also make the things we buy and pay our wages, so how do they pay our wages, make stuff and still make serious profit? Debt.
(Edited for spacing)
Pogue Mahone
Swiftie Fan Club President
I agree with all of that. The system definitely needs a tighter set of checks and balances to ensure there is less abuse. Brand raising issues doesn't bother me at all, in fact I think its a good thing. What i find underwhelming is him pointing out problems without offering solutions. The exchange he had with Paxman on voting was particularly silly.
At a macro level he's not pointing out any really viable solutions (is anyone?) but when he campaigns on local issues - such as the one that prompted this vitriol from The Sun - then he's suggesting a very clear solution.
In fact, that's part of his main premises in his book. A devolving of power from the central to the local. Allowing local communities a bigger say in issues which affect them directly. Which is one "solution" that I think makes a lot of sense.
MajorTom
New Member
Babble isn't an insult, merely an interpretation of your idealistic rambling that offers plenty of finger pointing but no solutions.
As for socialism - it seems to be on the wane over the past 20 years or so. Whereas capital markets seem increasingly influential in growing global wealth. The fact that the wealth is not reaching the developing world is a problem that needs to be tackled head on, not by dumping the entire system but by identifying ways to empower developing economies.
Where is this wealth? America is supposedly the wealthiest county in the world but look at their debt clock. Just do me one thing, name one single country not in debt. Better yet, let's go for 19, 10% of the countries on the planet.
Who is offended? I'm amused. Why hasn't socialism been successful thus far and what do you think is going to change to make it so?
If you are a captain of industry, whatever that may be, why would you stop your quality of live for others? Just like global warming now, the fossil fuels will be used up until there is no money to be made from them, regardless of the the affect of the weakening ionosphere. It can't be far off, no countries debt can be satisfied. Unless everyone defaults and then the confidence (as so many governments like to say), belief in money will be over. So it should be because it's a joke.
Yet it's been around (in various forms) for at least 10000 years. What's your timeframe for it ceasing to exist?
No condescension in this post, like many so far. My time frame? I wish I had the intellect to be a philosopher. I doubt it will be still around by the 23rd century at the latest. People seem to have more consciousness these days, especially on a general scale.
Eboue
nasty little twerp with crazy bitter-man opinions
If you are a captain of industry, whatever that may be, why would you stop your quality of live for others? Just like global warming now, the fossil fuels will be used up until there is no money to be made from them, regardless of the the affect of the weakening ionosphere. It can't be far off, no countries debt can be satisfied. Unless everyone defaults and then the confidence (as so many governments like to say), belief in money will be over. So it should be because it's a joke.
I'm going to ignore the debt rambling for the moment because you didn't answer my questions.
Why hasn't socialisn worked so far? What is going to change so that it will work in the future?
Where is this wealth? America is supposedly the wealthiest county in the world but look at their debt clock. Just do me one thing, name one single country not in debt. Better yet, let's go for 19, 10% of the countries on the planet.
It is indeed. And the wealth keeps accumulating due primarily to its having embraced capitalism. Beyond just domestically, US GDP has been the primary driver of the global economy. The US, Eurozone, and China collectively make up about 60% of global GDP.
Your debt argument may have some merit if nations carrying it weren't able to manage it, which occasionally does happen, but again that can be handled within the parameters of the current system.
Pogue Mahone
Swiftie Fan Club President
No condescension in this post, like many so far. My time frame? I wish I had the intellect to be a philosopher. I doubt it will be still around by the 23rd century at the latest. People seem to have more consciousness these days, especially on a general scale.
I had no intention of being condescending, I was just taking issue with your apparent confidence in such a seismic societal change in the very near future.
Pushing it out to the 23rd century sounds slightly more plausible. Still kind of abstract, though. I just hope we crack hoverboards and teleportation first.
Share: