Brand v Paxman
- Thread starter newbiejim
- Start date
Caporegime
- Joined
- 28 Jun 2007
- Posts
- 52,812
- Location
- Tamworth, UK
The BoE doesn't lend money, it creates it, at interest.
Deleted member 651465
Deleted member 651465
I can appreciate some of what Brand is saying. But to me he comes across like a little kid shouting in the plaground that "it's not fair!". Unfortunately life isn't fair and if you want to change it then you have to do something about it.
wtf...that was spooky ass. very beginning of interview.. what is RB doing haha? (there seriously needs to be a gif of that hehee)
Not watched all of it but from what ive seen of RB on Question Time he is celebrity playing at being an intellectual. Would be out of his depth in a conversation with Mr Blobby...
Sounds like RB has rehearsed some soundbites because he keeps repeating the same points. They're not really arguments just rants...he has nothing substantial.
A lot of people will agree with some of the *sentiments* he is expressing but he doesnt say HOW it will all happen...and he takes ubrage when JP asks for just a tiny bit of detail
I think perhaps he has watched Zeitgeist, Kymatica et all a little too many times....
I think Paxman got it right "You are a trival man aren't you"
Also shoulda noticed this earlier hahaha Anyone else see it?
heres a clue...
Not watched all of it but from what ive seen of RB on Question Time he is celebrity playing at being an intellectual. Would be out of his depth in a conversation with Mr Blobby...
Sounds like RB has rehearsed some soundbites because he keeps repeating the same points. They're not really arguments just rants...he has nothing substantial.
A lot of people will agree with some of the *sentiments* he is expressing but he doesnt say HOW it will all happen...and he takes ubrage when JP asks for just a tiny bit of detail
I think perhaps he has watched Zeitgeist, Kymatica et all a little too many times....I think Paxman got it right "You are a trival man aren't you"
Also shoulda noticed this earlier hahaha
Anyone else see it?
heres a clue...
Last edited:
Its nice to see somebody famous challenging the status quo but as soon as he mentioned socialism and redistribution of wealth I stopped listening. I thought he might have had something genuinely different but its just typical leftism.
so how would changing that suddenly pay for everything?
A number of options exist, just the average member of the public isn't even willing to consider another system which breaks the current method. Neither are those who stand to lose (those who benefit most from our current system) something from it, open to putting it on the table as a different method.
Personally, I'd like to have a fully written ethical constitution based off the goal of reducing objective human suffering.
Once you have that safeguard in place you enact a technocratic society (technocracy - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy) & let the scientific method of problem solving determine how to achieve those goals (through a myriad of different testing/prototyping methods) - all which would be open to criticism & peer review.
Decisions on healthcare should most certainly be made by our foremost experts in the field, the same with anything - why we should let politicians (who are little more than salesman with the gift of the gab) determine how we run incredibly complex social systems is beyond me.
If we want an inclusive productive society, with good public health, low crime & a high standard of life satisfaction then we can put in place solutions to achieve these goals.
Personally, democracy has two critical flaws I'd argue - firstly it simply gives us the ability to make sub-optimal choices & secondly it's reliant on the ability of the population to be able to judge the skill/validity of the politicians arguments (which as we all know, isn't how our system works).
We have an ignorant public, voting for clueless leaders to achieve unspecified goals using unproven methods - we then complain when it doesn't work.
This is stupid.
Personally, I'd like to have a fully written ethical constitution based off the goal of reducing objective human suffering.
Once you have that safeguard in place you enact a technocratic society (technocracy - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy) & let the scientific method of problem solving determine how to achieve those goals (through a myriad of different testing/prototyping methods) - all which would be open to criticism & peer review.
Decisions on healthcare should most certainly be made by our foremost experts in the field, the same with anything - why we should let politicians (who are little more than salesman with the gift of the gab) determine how we run incredibly complex social systems is beyond me.
If we want an inclusive productive society, with good public health, low crime & a high standard of life satisfaction then we can put in place solutions to achieve these goals.
Personally, democracy has two critical flaws I'd argue - firstly it simply gives us the ability to make sub-optimal choices & secondly it's reliant on the ability of the population to be able to judge the skill/validity of the politicians arguments (which as we all know, isn't how our system works).
We have an ignorant public, voting for clueless leaders to achieve unspecified goals using unproven methods - we then complain when it doesn't work.
This is stupid.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 28 Jun 2007
- Posts
- 52,812
- Location
- Tamworth, UK
It wouldn't change suddenly, it would be a gradual process which ultimately would lead to a reduction in the UK national debt.
someone make gillywibble chancellor!
he has the solution!! just give everyone free money, it will pay for everything.
why has no one thought of this before?? print money, give it out, no more poverty.
AMAZING!
Amazing that you don't understand anything I have been saying
This man speaks sense.
problem there of course being that there is no proven method for economics or pretty much anything on a national/international scale.
why on earth do you think a doctor is qualified to run a health service?
Do you think managers and accountants are qualified to dispense medical advice?
someone make gillywibble chancellor!
he has the solution!! just give everyone free money, it will pay for everything.
why has no one thought of this before?? print money, give it out, no more poverty.
AMAZING!
Awesome, and according to gillywibble i'm eligible for the winter fuel allowance and final salary pension! Where's my free money??
Not sure why everyone is having a go at Russell Brand, he wasn't there to come up with a solution. He wanted to show his frustrations at what the current scheme is causing. To which the general public agree with.
Who really has the solution? The country is so corrupt, the job itself is impossible.
I agree with his reasons on not voting, and that's why I also do not vote.
Who really has the solution? The country is so corrupt, the job itself is impossible.
I agree with his reasons on not voting, and that's why I also do not vote.
Associate
- Joined
- 22 Sep 2007
- Posts
- 2,184
- Location
- Abingdon
The problem is that money doesn't actually represent anything anymore, the amount of money in the economy is a number pulled out of the air by the treasury.
It used to be linked to the gold standard, so your £10 was worth an amount of gold and so this limited the amount of money in the ecomony to the actual wealth of the government (the amount of gold in its vaults). This was in a time when people only spent what they had, lived within their means, etc etc. Once money had no basis in reality, people and institutions could hoard unlimited amounts of it, there would be nothing to stop George Osbourne waking up tomorrow and saying that he was going to pay off the national debt by printing £10tn, but this would annoy the people we've borrowed this imaginary money from.
I think the problem in society have come about because people no longer want to take responsibility for their own lives. This made-up money has enabled government(s) to lull the masses into a dependancy culture whereby the state will provide healthcare, education, income and housing to people who used to have to provide these things themselves. The expansion of the state from providing the things individuals/small collectives couldn't provide such as utilities, infrastructure, defense, law & order has meant that when people aren't given the extra's they've been used to receiving on demand, they become victims, disadvantaged and vulnerable.
Unfortunately this expansion of the state could only last for so long, and the party is coming to an end. Obviously people don't like this but we are now living in a global economy and the West cannot continue living the way it has by exploiting cheap labour and resources from the rest of the world.
It used to be linked to the gold standard, so your £10 was worth an amount of gold and so this limited the amount of money in the ecomony to the actual wealth of the government (the amount of gold in its vaults). This was in a time when people only spent what they had, lived within their means, etc etc. Once money had no basis in reality, people and institutions could hoard unlimited amounts of it, there would be nothing to stop George Osbourne waking up tomorrow and saying that he was going to pay off the national debt by printing £10tn, but this would annoy the people we've borrowed this imaginary money from.
I think the problem in society have come about because people no longer want to take responsibility for their own lives. This made-up money has enabled government(s) to lull the masses into a dependancy culture whereby the state will provide healthcare, education, income and housing to people who used to have to provide these things themselves. The expansion of the state from providing the things individuals/small collectives couldn't provide such as utilities, infrastructure, defense, law & order has meant that when people aren't given the extra's they've been used to receiving on demand, they become victims, disadvantaged and vulnerable.
Unfortunately this expansion of the state could only last for so long, and the party is coming to an end. Obviously people don't like this but we are now living in a global economy and the West cannot continue living the way it has by exploiting cheap labour and resources from the rest of the world.
Last edited:
You can do this by spoiling the ballot paper. The quantity of spoilt ballots is recorded in the report.
no it's not the same none of the above has a very special feature. if it wins then all people on that ballot cannot run again.
hence politicians can be effectively removed