On 2024-01-25, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 20:15:15 +0100
> D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 25 Jan 2024, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>
>
>> > The entire book, and that without reading it. Political theory
>> > is not something that can be proven - not without experiments and
>> > controls so take two identical populations organise one as per this
>> > book and another as per Marx's book keep all external conditions
>> > identical and come back in a couple of centuries. Then and ONLY THEN
>> > will there be proof. This is of course impossible - all political
>> > theory is nothing more than guesswork.
>>
>> Ahh you see... that is where you already went wrong. It is about
>> capitalism, not about politics. Capitalism basically says, and this is
>> proven, that if we want a system that gives each of us as much as humanly
>> possible of material wealth, it is the only system.
>
> You have a very different standard of proof to me. That is not
> proven and CANNOT be proven. Neither can socialist theory or any other
> theory about politics, economics or anything of the kind. Even theories
> about physics cannot be proven but at least they can be tested, these
> theories cannot even be tested.
>

++Agreed.

--
greymausg@mail.com
Is There not even an .Influencer to impale?
Charles I, beheaded, Charles II, killed by doctors, What is happen to Chuck III?

On 2024-01-24, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:

>
> Just look at Switzerland, not a EU member, and they did pretty well for
> themselves without any natural resources to talk of.

Apart from the Landsknecht

--
Bernard Peek
bap@shrdlu.com
Wigan

On 2024-01-25, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 16:23:57 +0000
> Abandoned Trolley <fred@fred-smith.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> So, if you are at the bottom of the stack and one of the commodities in
>> a manipulated market then your prospects may not be so good.
>> So my opinion (and that’s all this is) is that in a free market NOT
>> everybody wins
>
> One thing is for sure nothing tried to date has resulted in
> everybody winning, one could be forgiven for suspecting that there are no
> conditions under which everybody wins.

That's partly because there is no unambiguous measure of "winning."
Traditionally it's been GDP divided by population. The mean income. But
that's economics for the hard of thinking. There are arguments for measuring
economic performance by minimum, modal and median income.

--
Bernard Peek
bap@shrdlu.com
Wigan

On 2024-01-25, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>
> Over time everybody wins. Thank to trickle down, even africa gains when=20
> europe and US has a surplus.

Strangely enough the problem with trickle-down economics is that it can be
seen to work. FSVO. When the plutocrat employs a chauffer he's paid as a
consequence of trickle-down economics in action.

Opponents claim it doesn't work and in doing so lose their credibility with
those who see it every day. The problem isn't that it doesn't work but that
it doesn't work very well.

--
Bernard Peek
bap@shrdlu.com
Wigan

On 2024-01-24, maus <maus@deb2.org> wrote:

> AFD in Germany, the likely largest party in the next election there,
> propose leaving the Euro.

That would be good for the whole EU. The diferences in the economies of
Germany and say Greece are such that sharing a currency harms both.

--
Bernard Peek
bap@shrdlu.com
Wigan

On 2024-01-25, maus <maus@deb2.org> wrote:

> Just been thinking. The US had no real way of getting a POTUS to resign,
> if he goes Gaga, and that had happened three times in around a century,
> Woodrow Wilson, Ronald REagan, and joe Biden. Someone should think of
> some way of dealinng with that problem.

I'm wondering what will happen if in one of the criminal trials the judge
calls for psychriatric reports on Trump.

--
Bernard Peek
bap@shrdlu.com
Wigan

On 2024-01-24, Znep <znep@cleopatra.co.uk> wrote:
> In uk.rec.sheds, (Abandoned Trolley) wrote in
><unkhj9$260tr$1@dont-email.me>::
>
>>
>>> I'll bite. The EU seems to score quite high on the five old tantrum
>>> strop. 'We will stop your supplies of vaccines" comes to mind.
>>
>>
>>Along with "we will prohibit a hard border in the Irish mainland" ?
>
> Well, if we have a hard border, we'd be in breach of a treaty that we
> signed (in which the USA also has a strong interest).

Indeed. Brexit and the GFA are incompatible. We can't get a trade
agreement with the USA if we break the GFA. But with a bit of
jiggery-pokery we might use the promise of an agreement with the USA to buy
our way back into the EU.

--
Bernard Peek
bap@shrdlu.com
Wigan

On 25/01/2024 10:12, Jeff Gaines wrote:
> On 25/01/2024 in message <uot726$284i0$1@dont-email.me> Abandoned
> Trolley wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>>     One major club benefit of the EU is free movement of goods, people,
>>> money and services - the four freedoms. The UK wanted to have three
>>> out of
>>> the four and the EU stuck to its principles and insisted on all or none.
>>> The UK chose none. If that's intransigence then fair enough.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Free movement of goods demonstrably does NOT include alcohol, tobacco,
>> firearms, pornography or motor vehicles - or the fuel in the tanks of
>> motor vehicles.
>>
>> And while nobody was looking, there have been more than 100,000 local
>> exclusions and exceptions granted, mostly for food items like local
>> wines and cheese and (curiously) bananas
>
> Bent bananas or straight ones?
>
I knew someone would bring up at least one of Boris Johnson's inventions.

I blame Max Hastings for sending Boris to Brussels.

On 25/01/2024 10:38, D wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 24 Jan 2024, Sn!pe wrote:
>
>> The waters were later muddied, of course, by Covid, the energy crisis
>> brought about by Putin and the subsequent inflation.  Not to mention the
>> absurd infighting and mismanagement of the economy by the Tbireazrag.
>>
>> That's what comes of letting the nippers run the show.  Hah, bumbag.
>
> True. Assuming, and this is a big assumption, that the UK does not
> choose the socialist path, you'll see in 20 years or so, that the UK
> will grow its economy quicker than the EU and will be better off.
>
> Of course, what I suspect will happen, is that the socialists will win
> the election and further run the UK economy into the ground. Then
> they'll say that "this would never have happened with the EU" and a new
> Brexit vote will be held.
>
> The population at large will believe that if the UK were to join the EU
> again, all will be good, and then you'll join again.
>
> Should you choose the path of freedom and capitalism, in a generation,
> no one will even remember the EU.
>
> Best regards, Daniel
>
Remarkable!
The economy has nosedived under a long long Tory government - but it
will all be Labour's fault in the end.
Talk about getting your excuses in well ahead of events.

On 25/01/2024 15:27, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 15:29:42 +0100
> D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 25 Jan 2024, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 11:35:39 +0100
>>> D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Why? In a free market, everyone wins as proven by Johan Norbergs modern
>>>> classic The Capitalist Manifesto.
>>>
>>> That book does not prove anything any more than Mein Kampf or
>>> The Communist Manifesto do. All of these books are the opinions of the
>>> authors nothing more or less.
>>>
>> Why not? Upon reading it I think it did a pretty good job of proving it.
>> Could you provide me with the chapter or pages you think proof is
>> lacking?
>
> The entire book, and that without reading it. Political theory is
> not something that can be proven - not without experiments and controls so
> take two identical populations organise one as per this book and another as
> per Marx's book keep all external conditions identical and come back in a
> couple of centuries. Then and ONLY THEN will there be proof. This is of
> course impossible - all political theory is nothing more than guesswork.
>
You would need more than two groups, if you want a statistically valid
result.

On 25/01/2024 23:40, Bernard Peek wrote:
> On 2024-01-25, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>>
>> Over time everybody wins. Thank to trickle down, even africa gains when=20
>> europe and US has a surplus.
>
> Strangely enough the problem with trickle-down economics is that it can be
> seen to work. FSVO. When the plutocrat employs a chauffer he's paid as a
> consequence of trickle-down economics in action.
>
> Opponents claim it doesn't work and in doing so lose their credibility with
> those who see it every day. The problem isn't that it doesn't work but that
> it doesn't work very well.

But those who have the money are very concerned with keeping all that
money for themselves.
They thus work tirelessly to minimise the very "trickle down" you hope for.
The very wealthy have the ear (and often the balls) of politicians in
their grasp.
Hence it's no surprise that there is a steady shift in legislation which
favours those wealthy and reduces the protection of the poor. Having a
large pool of underemployed poor people who will/must work for low wages
with little or any employment protection - is a jolly good thing if you
own the company.

On 25/01/2024 13:22, Abandoned Trolley wrote:
> On 25/01/2024 12:24, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 11:21:18 +0000
>> Abandoned Trolley <fred@fred-smith.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> How did Italy manage to meet the criteria ?
>>
>>     Probably the same way Greece did - by telling porkies and getting
>> away with it.
>>
>
>
> Possibly the foundation stone of the EU :-\

How unlike our own dear Government.
(Where's that 'Tongue in cheek' icon?)

On 25 Jan 2024 23:55:57 GMT
Bernard Peek <bap@shrdlu.com> wrote:

> Indeed. Brexit and the GFA are incompatible.

There is one way they become compatible, Irish unification.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
For forms of government let fools contest
Whate're is best administered is best - Alexander Pope

On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 01:10:48 +0000
Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:

> On 25/01/2024 15:27, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> > On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 15:29:42 +0100

> > The entire book, and that without reading it. Political theory
> > is not something that can be proven - not without experiments and
> > controls so take two identical populations organise one as per this
> > book and another as per Marx's book keep all external conditions
> > identical and come back in a couple of centuries. Then and ONLY THEN
> > will there be proof. This is of course impossible - all political
> > theory is nothing more than guesswork.
> >
> You would need more than two groups, if you want a statistically valid
> result.

True enough - but even two is a flat out impossibility.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
For forms of government let fools contest
Whate're is best administered is best - Alexander Pope

On 25 Jan 2024 23:34:04 GMT
Bernard Peek <bap@shrdlu.com> wrote:

> On 2024-01-25, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
> > On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 16:23:57 +0000
> > Abandoned Trolley <fred@fred-smith.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> So, if you are at the bottom of the stack and one of the commodities
> >> in a manipulated market then your prospects may not be so good.
> >> So my opinion (and that’s all this is) is that in a free market NOT
> >> everybody wins
> >
> > One thing is for sure nothing tried to date has resulted in
> > everybody winning, one could be forgiven for suspecting that there are
> > no conditions under which everybody wins.
>
> That's partly because there is no unambiguous measure of "winning."
> Traditionally it's been GDP divided by population. The mean income. But

You missed the keyword "everybody" that means nobody goes hungry,
nobody is homeless, nobody lacks medical care, ... in short nobody loses.
That is what has never happened.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
For forms of government let fools contest
Whate're is best administered is best - Alexander Pope

On 2024-01-25, Bernard Peek <bap@shrdlu.com> wrote:
> On 2024-01-24, maus <maus@deb2.org> wrote:
>
>> AFD in Germany, the likely largest party in the next election there,
>> propose leaving the Euro.
>
> That would be good for the whole EU. The diferences in the economies of
> Germany and say Greece are such that sharing a currency harms both.
>
>
It, IMHO, helps Germany, as it keeps its exchange rate low (Rather that
if is was Marks) It harms Greece.

--
greymausg@mail.com
Is There not even an .Influencer to impale?
Charles I, beheaded, Charles II, killed by doctors, What is happen to Chuck III?

On 2024-01-26, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
> On 25 Jan 2024 23:55:57 GMT
> Bernard Peek <bap@shrdlu.com> wrote:
>
>> Indeed. Brexit and the GFA are incompatible.
>
> There is one way they become compatible, Irish unification.
>
There is a proposal, I dont know how serious, for antrim + most of Down
to join Scotland.

--
greymausg@mail.com
Is There not even an .Influencer to impale?
Charles I, beheaded, Charles II, killed by doctors, What is happen to Chuck III?

On 25/01/2024 19:16, D wrote:
> Thank to trickle down, even africa gains when europe and US has a surplus.

Trickle down is a con. Making the rich obscenely rich doesn't help the
poor.In fact the opposite. To make the rich richer you need to make the
poor poorer. That is trickle up.

"Some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that
economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in
bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This
opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude
and naive trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in
the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system. Meanwhile,
the excluded are still waiting."

Source: Goldfarb, Zachary A.; Boorstein, Michelle (26 November 2013).
"Pope Francis denounces 'trickle-down' economic theories in sharp
criticism of inequality". Business. The Washington Post. Archived from
the original on 6 April 2018. Retrieved 6 April 2018.

The main motive for your thinking is greed. Admit it.

Tone

On 26/01/2024 in message <uyDsN.250776$7sbb.165611@fx16.iad> Sam Plusnet
wrote:

>>>And while nobody was looking, there have been more than 100,000 local
>>>exclusions and exceptions granted, mostly for food items like local wines
>>>and cheese and (curiously) bananas
>>
>>Bent bananas or straight ones?
>>
>I knew someone would bring up at least one of Boris Johnson's inventions.
>
>I blame Max Hastings for sending Boris to Brussels.

The legislation is real:

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1333/2011 of 19 December 2011

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
Captcha is thinking of stopping the use of pictures with traffic lights as
cyclists don't know what they are.

Bernard Peek wrote:

> We can't get a trade agreement with the USA if we break the GFA.

We seem to have managed for 248 years without one ...

On 2024-01-25, Richard Robinson <richard@qualmograph.org.uk> wrote:
> Simon said:
>>
>> Personally I miss Greggs sausage rolls, but have learned to make a
>> good version at home. :-)
>>
>> This is Costa Blanca, Spain.
>
> You won't have met their "vegan sausage rolls" then ? They're good.
>

No, I may be tempted if they are that good though, usually vegan added
to anything just means expensive.
--
Simon

RLU: 222126

On 2024-01-26, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
> On 25/01/2024 23:40, Bernard Peek wrote:
>> On 2024-01-25, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Over time everybody wins. Thank to trickle down, even africa gains when=20
>>> europe and US has a surplus.
>>
>> Strangely enough the problem with trickle-down economics is that it can be
>> seen to work. FSVO. When the plutocrat employs a chauffer he's paid as a
>> consequence of trickle-down economics in action.
>>
>> Opponents claim it doesn't work and in doing so lose their credibility with
>> those who see it every day. The problem isn't that it doesn't work but that
>> it doesn't work very well.
>
> But those who have the money are very concerned with keeping all that
> money for themselves.
> They thus work tirelessly to minimise the very "trickle down" you hope for.
> The very wealthy have the ear (and often the balls) of politicians in
> their grasp.

That's true but not necessarily for the reason you think. I'm a big fan of
Hanlon's razor. Never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately
explained by incompetence. Some people say ignorance. The money those people
are holding is not just stuffed under the mattress, it's working. Investment
generates a third of our incomes. Spreading the money around has benefits,
but also costs.

--
Bernard Peek
bap@shrdlu.com
Wigan

On 2024-01-26, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
> On 25 Jan 2024 23:55:57 GMT
> Bernard Peek <bap@shrdlu.com> wrote:
>
>> Indeed. Brexit and the GFA are incompatible.
>
> There is one way they become compatible, Irish unification.

Potentially. But probably not. It would be necessary to get the Unionists to
agree to it. Good luck with that.

--
Bernard Peek
bap@shrdlu.com
Wigan

On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 09:15:15 -0000 (UTC)
Simon <SimonJ@eu.invalid> wrote:

> On 2024-01-25, Richard Robinson <richard@qualmograph.org.uk> wrote:
> > Simon said:
> >>
> >> Personally I miss Greggs sausage rolls, but have learned to make a
> >> good version at home. :-)
> >>
> >> This is Costa Blanca, Spain.
> >
> > You won't have met their "vegan sausage rolls" then ? They're good.
> >
>
> No, I may be tempted if they are that good though, usually vegan added
> to anything just means expensive.

Same price as the killed animal ones; 4 for £3.60 last time I
lunched out.

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

On Thu, 25 Jan 2024, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:

> On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 20:15:15 +0100
> D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 25 Jan 2024, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>
>
>>> The entire book, and that without reading it. Political theory
>>> is not something that can be proven - not without experiments and
>>> controls so take two identical populations organise one as per this
>>> book and another as per Marx's book keep all external conditions
>>> identical and come back in a couple of centuries. Then and ONLY THEN
>>> will there be proof. This is of course impossible - all political
>>> theory is nothing more than guesswork.
>>
>> Ahh you see... that is where you already went wrong. It is about
>> capitalism, not about politics. Capitalism basically says, and this is
>> proven, that if we want a system that gives each of us as much as humanly
>> possible of material wealth, it is the only system.
>
> You have a very different standard of proof to me. That is not
> proven and CANNOT be proven. Neither can socialist theory or any other
> theory about politics, economics or anything of the kind. Even theories
> about physics cannot be proven but at least they can be tested, these
> theories cannot even be tested.

Of course they can. Just look at the facts. I get the feeling you are a
solipsist or a forever agnostic, and in that case, there is of course no
point in discussing anything with you, since the only thing you will take
as a fact is your own consciousness.

But the fact that you are arguing does imply that you do believe a reality
exists.

Socialism has been scientifically disproven, it has been historically
disproven, just look at the countries it has been tried in. So there
really is no other proven ideology than capitalism.

But I think this goes to the core of your personality and you probably
identify as an underdog and leftist, so I do understand that these
fundamental beliefs of yourself don'ẗ shift over night.

But I'm sure once you calm down, read the book, and think about it, you'll
slowly shift your point of view over the years.