FOLLOW BOREME
TAGS
<< Back to listing
Julie Bindel on Jeremy Corbyn's women-only train carriage proposal

Julie Bindel on Jeremy Corbyn's women-only train carriage proposal

(2:59) Labour leadership contender Jeremy Corbyn said he would consider women-only train carriages as a solution to the rise of assault and harrassment on public transport. Corbyn's camp stress it is not concrete policy, just a proposal to start a conversation. Journalist and feminist activist Julie Bindel gives her reaction.

Share this post

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (842 days ago)

Nationalise the railways and use some of the profits to hire more staff at night. Problem solved and everyone's a winner.

ReplyVote up (171)down (121)
Original comment

Nationalise the railways and use some of the profits to hire more staff at night. Problem solved and everyone's a winner.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Casey Casey (842 days ago)

Except the taxpayer when the inevitable inefficient bureaucracy needs to subsidise the trains....debt upon debt is no answer to anything. We're beginning to see the unwinding of such socialist practices, public and private, as we read.

ReplyVote up (180)down (127)
Original comment

Except the taxpayer when the inevitable inefficient bureaucracy needs to subsidise the trains....debt upon debt is no answer to anything. We're beginning to see the unwinding of such socialist practices, public and private, as we read.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (841 days ago)

I think it makes a lot of sense to nationalise Britain's railways. Today we have the highest fares in Europe by far, and our railways are still subsidised to meet "public service obligations", for example, unprofitable routes serving smaller communities.

The difference between a for-profit private rail company and a nationalised rail service can be illustrated when trains get too crowded - the private company raises fares to manage passenger numbers; the nationalised company invests in longer trains and platforms.

Here's an interesting real-world comparison from an article in The Independent. I'll paraphrase a bit of it. LINK

Between 1997 and 2012, Virgin Trains (serving the west coast) received £2.5 billion in subsidies, the equivalent of £4.57 per passenger mile.

Meanwhile, two private train operators serving the east coast failed in providing adequate service and in 2009, the government took them over with a publicly owned company 'Directly Operated Railways' with the objective of stabilising the operation, and handing it back to the private sector in good shape. Since 2009, the publicly owned company made £1 billion, and government subsidy was only £0.46 per passenger mile (compared to Virgin's £4.57). Customer rating was also the highest of all east coast train operators, and DOR recorded the highest level of ‘employee engagement’ in franchise history, at 71 per cent with sickness leave reduced by a third.

In March 2015, the franchise was handed back to the private sector, Inter City Railways Limited, a consortium of Stagecoach Group (90%), and Virgin Trains (10%). Let's hope they don't fluck it up as they reap all the profits. LINK

Isn't that compelling evidence for a nationalised railway system in the UK?

ReplyVote up (124)down (109)
Original comment

I think it makes a lot of sense to nationalise Britain's railways. Today we have the highest fares in Europe by far, and our railways are still subsidised to meet "public service obligations", for example, unprofitable routes serving smaller communities.

The difference between a for-profit private rail company and a nationalised rail service can be illustrated when trains get too crowded - the private company raises fares to manage passenger numbers; the nationalised company invests in longer trains and platforms.

Here's an interesting real-world comparison from an article in The Independent. I'll paraphrase a bit of it. LINK

Between 1997 and 2012, Virgin Trains (serving the west coast) received £2.5 billion in subsidies, the equivalent of £4.57 per passenger mile.

Meanwhile, two private train operators serving the east coast failed in providing adequate service and in 2009, the government took them over with a publicly owned company 'Directly Operated Railways' with the objective of stabilising the operation, and handing it back to the private sector in good shape. Since 2009, the publicly owned company made £1 billion, and government subsidy was only £0.46 per passenger mile (compared to Virgin's £4.57). Customer rating was also the highest of all east coast train operators, and DOR recorded the highest level of ‘employee engagement’ in franchise history, at 71 per cent with sickness leave reduced by a third.

In March 2015, the franchise was handed back to the private sector, Inter City Railways Limited, a consortium of Stagecoach Group (90%), and Virgin Trains (10%). Let's hope they don't fluck it up as they reap all the profits. LINK

Isn't that compelling evidence for a nationalised railway system in the UK?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Casey Casey (841 days ago)

At first glance it does sound reasonable but digging in a bit I see a lot of govt. meddling in even the private railways. I see a controversial take over of a private train company when, after two incidents, the govt. ordered safety upgrades the company just couldn't afford. There is also the issue of track ownership and rates paid on it. How can any company say it made a real profit when being subsidised? Was the subsidy more or less than the £billion "profit"? Are the govt. run trains receiving preferential treatment on track rates? I'm not saying it's impossible that a govt. run company can't make money, just highly unlikely due to it's nature of not being absolutely necessary to make a profit due to an (almost) unlimited money supply from tax payers creating moral hazard.

ReplyVote up (184)down (78)
Original comment

At first glance it does sound reasonable but digging in a bit I see a lot of govt. meddling in even the private railways. I see a controversial take over of a private train company when, after two incidents, the govt. ordered safety upgrades the company just couldn't afford. There is also the issue of track ownership and rates paid on it. How can any company say it made a real profit when being subsidised? Was the subsidy more or less than the £billion "profit"? Are the govt. run trains receiving preferential treatment on track rates? I'm not saying it's impossible that a govt. run company can't make money, just highly unlikely due to it's nature of not being absolutely necessary to make a profit due to an (almost) unlimited money supply from tax payers creating moral hazard.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (841 days ago)

"I'm not saying it's impossible that a govt. run company can't make money, just highly unlikely due to it's nature of not being absolutely necessary to make a profit due to an (almost) unlimited money supply from tax payers creating moral hazard."

"Profit" per se, is not a good way to value a company. Do we want to live in a world where everything boils down to a monetary value?

A much better way is to value a company by how great its service or product is. Profit should be a direct side-effect to how great the company's service or product is. It is actually how capitalism is supposed to work - if your product is not selling, then make it better in some way. Otherwise you go out of business and your rivals reap the profits.

But we've gone way past that old-fashion capitalism. Now, because it's just about profit, if your product is not selling, then buy your rival because that is an easier path to profit than trying to compete.

Privatised railways makes no sense, and the proof can be seen in the UK, where the fares are 3-4 times higher than in Germany or France. First, you don't have competition because you don't have multiple companies sharing the same routes.

And then there's the separation of track and train, ie. who owns/maintains the tracks and if that is a private company, then can they charge the train companies whatever they like to use? In the UK, railway infrastructure is owned by Network Rail, which is state-owned.

And the biggie of course is that railways are a public service, so loss making routes still need to run. A publicly owned company can use the profits from profitable routes to cover loss making routes. A private company can't because then it would not make a profit. So instead, taxpayers pay for the loss making routes with subsidies, and the private companies take the profits from the profitable routes. How can that be right?

It would be relatively easy to bring the railways back into public ownership. Just don't renew the licences when they expire.

Also, your point about " an (almost) unlimited money supply from tax payers " , governments do not have unlimited money. Have you heard of austerity?

ReplyVote up (154)down (104)
Original comment

"I'm not saying it's impossible that a govt. run company can't make money, just highly unlikely due to it's nature of not being absolutely necessary to make a profit due to an (almost) unlimited money supply from tax payers creating moral hazard."

"Profit" per se, is not a good way to value a company. Do we want to live in a world where everything boils down to a monetary value?

A much better way is to value a company by how great its service or product is. Profit should be a direct side-effect to how great the company's service or product is. It is actually how capitalism is supposed to work - if your product is not selling, then make it better in some way. Otherwise you go out of business and your rivals reap the profits.

But we've gone way past that old-fashion capitalism. Now, because it's just about profit, if your product is not selling, then buy your rival because that is an easier path to profit than trying to compete.

Privatised railways makes no sense, and the proof can be seen in the UK, where the fares are 3-4 times higher than in Germany or France. First, you don't have competition because you don't have multiple companies sharing the same routes.

And then there's the separation of track and train, ie. who owns/maintains the tracks and if that is a private company, then can they charge the train companies whatever they like to use? In the UK, railway infrastructure is owned by Network Rail, which is state-owned.

And the biggie of course is that railways are a public service, so loss making routes still need to run. A publicly owned company can use the profits from profitable routes to cover loss making routes. A private company can't because then it would not make a profit. So instead, taxpayers pay for the loss making routes with subsidies, and the private companies take the profits from the profitable routes. How can that be right?

It would be relatively easy to bring the railways back into public ownership. Just don't renew the licences when they expire.

Also, your point about " an (almost) unlimited money supply from tax payers " , governments do not have unlimited money. Have you heard of austerity?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Casey Casey (840 days ago)

"Profit" per se, is not a good way to value a company. Do we want to live in a world where everything boils down to a monetary value?" It's not a matter of what you want, it's what works best. Subsidising only means taking from one entity to pay for another so, in effect, you're over charging on one side.this may seem okay at first glance but when the govt. is running deficits it soon becomes a case of what to cut next to pay for something else or just borrow the difference. Austerity is what happens when you run out of other people's money trying to finance socialist policies. It happens when the free market naturally forces a return to the mean, it's happening naturally all over the world at the moment. There is no such thing as a free lunch, or even a subsidised lunch, that doesn't come back to bite you sooner or later, it may take decades of govt. borrowing where as a private company could never get that far before going bankrupt. Problem is a company only impacts a minor amount of people where as when a govt. goes bankrupt it impacts most everyone. Your perceived unapproval of where one company buys out another more profitable company is scary in its implications that you probably think the govt. should intervene ....Orwellian.

ReplyVote up (127)down (66)
Original comment

"Profit" per se, is not a good way to value a company. Do we want to live in a world where everything boils down to a monetary value?" It's not a matter of what you want, it's what works best. Subsidising only means taking from one entity to pay for another so, in effect, you're over charging on one side.this may seem okay at first glance but when the govt. is running deficits it soon becomes a case of what to cut next to pay for something else or just borrow the difference. Austerity is what happens when you run out of other people's money trying to finance socialist policies. It happens when the free market naturally forces a return to the mean, it's happening naturally all over the world at the moment. There is no such thing as a free lunch, or even a subsidised lunch, that doesn't come back to bite you sooner or later, it may take decades of govt. borrowing where as a private company could never get that far before going bankrupt. Problem is a company only impacts a minor amount of people where as when a govt. goes bankrupt it impacts most everyone. Your perceived unapproval of where one company buys out another more profitable company is scary in its implications that you probably think the govt. should intervene ....Orwellian.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (840 days ago)

"It's not a matter of what you want, it's what works best."

So if it costs £x million to provide a service, it costs £x million plus a profit for a private company to provide the same service: consumers lose.

Or the company saves money by providing lower quality: consumers lose.

Or the company does it "more efficiently" by cutting jobs: society loses by the loss of those redundant people's spending power.

Having experienced both nationalised and private railway services in the UK, I experienced a better, cheaper service when it was nationalised. Indeed I can't think of a previously nationalised industry that has "worked better" after privatisation.

"But only," you cry, "because of government subsidy." Subsidy, schmubsidy: if it goes on roads or nuclear power, government (taxpayers') money is called "investment"; if it goes on railways or renewable energy, it's called "subsidy."

Double-standards, I think.

ReplyVote up (125)down (78)
Original comment

"It's not a matter of what you want, it's what works best."

So if it costs £x million to provide a service, it costs £x million plus a profit for a private company to provide the same service: consumers lose.

Or the company saves money by providing lower quality: consumers lose.

Or the company does it "more efficiently" by cutting jobs: society loses by the loss of those redundant people's spending power.

Having experienced both nationalised and private railway services in the UK, I experienced a better, cheaper service when it was nationalised. Indeed I can't think of a previously nationalised industry that has "worked better" after privatisation.

"But only," you cry, "because of government subsidy." Subsidy, schmubsidy: if it goes on roads or nuclear power, government (taxpayers') money is called "investment"; if it goes on railways or renewable energy, it's called "subsidy."

Double-standards, I think.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (840 days ago)

What we want, and what works best are related. If we want a fair society, then laissez-faire captalism doesn't work best because it can only produce an ever increasing wealth gap. If we want a plutocracy, then laisez-faire capitalism is just perfect.

Austerity is a con perpetrated by laissez-faire capitalists to persuade people that everything is the government's fault, therefore the answer is cut government spending.

Greece got into problems because they spent too much. It was too much because they didn't collect enough taxes to pay for it. To fix the problem with austerity, that required the Greeks to cut their spending so that they are living within their means.

It's a con because it leads to a downward spiral very difficult to pull out from, that is beneficial to the banks Greece owes money to, at the cost of the Greek people and EU taxpayers - which is exactly what has been happening in Greece the past 5 years.

To meet austerity demands, the Greek government, among other things, cut state-funded jobs and wages. This meant more people on welfare, and people spending less as their wages were squeezed. So companies went out of business, more people lose their jobs, welfare bill rises, more government cuts to cover welfare rises, etc ... and the spiral continues. The laissez-faire capitalist bankers are happy, because Greece will always need bailouts (paid by EU taxpayers) to pay the ever increasing interest on the debt. Did you know that of the bailouts Greece received in 2010 and 2012, 90% went to the banks. LINK

" Austerity is what happens when you run out of other people's money trying to finance socialist policies. " Good "socialist" policies are profitable if you look at the wider picture. A great state education system benefits everyone in society and pays for itself by boosting the economic competitiveness of the nation. A great private education system only benefits those who can pay.

Good "socialist" policies are funded by taxes, and they can work better, and be cheaper, than private alternatives - for example, just compare US vs UK health systems.

Your perceived unapproval of where one company buys out another more profitable company is scary in its implications that you probably think the govt. should intervene ....Orwellian. It's only Orwellian if the government is corrupt, and not working in the interests of the people, just like the current US government, and to a lesser extent, the UK government.

No, I was talking about monopolies. Do we really want a world that is run by a handful of companies? Because the only thing that can prevent that happening are regulations, or revolution. Unless you've got any better ideas.

ReplyVote up (113)down (156)
Original comment

What we want, and what works best are related. If we want a fair society, then laissez-faire captalism doesn't work best because it can only produce an ever increasing wealth gap. If we want a plutocracy, then laisez-faire capitalism is just perfect.

Austerity is a con perpetrated by laissez-faire capitalists to persuade people that everything is the government's fault, therefore the answer is cut government spending.

Greece got into problems because they spent too much. It was too much because they didn't collect enough taxes to pay for it. To fix the problem with austerity, that required the Greeks to cut their spending so that they are living within their means.

It's a con because it leads to a downward spiral very difficult to pull out from, that is beneficial to the banks Greece owes money to, at the cost of the Greek people and EU taxpayers - which is exactly what has been happening in Greece the past 5 years.

To meet austerity demands, the Greek government, among other things, cut state-funded jobs and wages. This meant more people on welfare, and people spending less as their wages were squeezed. So companies went out of business, more people lose their jobs, welfare bill rises, more government cuts to cover welfare rises, etc ... and the spiral continues. The laissez-faire capitalist bankers are happy, because Greece will always need bailouts (paid by EU taxpayers) to pay the ever increasing interest on the debt. Did you know that of the bailouts Greece received in 2010 and 2012, 90% went to the banks. LINK

" Austerity is what happens when you run out of other people's money trying to finance socialist policies. " Good "socialist" policies are profitable if you look at the wider picture. A great state education system benefits everyone in society and pays for itself by boosting the economic competitiveness of the nation. A great private education system only benefits those who can pay.

Good "socialist" policies are funded by taxes, and they can work better, and be cheaper, than private alternatives - for example, just compare US vs UK health systems.

Your perceived unapproval of where one company buys out another more profitable company is scary in its implications that you probably think the govt. should intervene ....Orwellian. It's only Orwellian if the government is corrupt, and not working in the interests of the people, just like the current US government, and to a lesser extent, the UK government.

No, I was talking about monopolies. Do we really want a world that is run by a handful of companies? Because the only thing that can prevent that happening are regulations, or revolution. Unless you've got any better ideas.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Casey Casey (839 days ago)

What do you mean by a fair society? Fair to whom? There can only be fairness under law, all else depends on the individual. Laissez fair capitalism , or the closer you get to it, is the by far the best way of raising the living standards of all of society. With out the risk to reward that entrepreneurs, that is job creators, need to expend capital and energy then you'd sink into the quagmire of a non productive, wasteful central planned economy. Nobody wins. Fair the way you mean it cannot exist in a free society where men are allowed to reach their full potential, and, in doing so, benefit all those he brings along for the ride. Fairness to you means wealth redistribution, sounds great, but in reality wealth goes where it's treated best and higher taxes just means the wealthy take their money and jobs elsewhere. It's already happened. Fairness in law is what we need and the govt. out of our businesses so we can do what we do best. That is creating jobs and wealth for everyone in a free environment with only the constraints of common law. The Greeks went broke because they have a ridiculous welfare system that successive govt. used to buy votes with and borrowed money to pay for it. Very few people or companies can do that, only govt. can borrow so much so they bankrupt an entire country! Countries are bankrupted by govt. never people or companies. They know their tax revenues, they should budget accordingly. Socialists always argue the same point...if only we could get more taxes! Do you really believe they would stop spending more than they bring in? How can you have "laissez faire capitalist bankers" (what does that even mean?)getting a bailout? Under laissez faire capitalist system they would be no bailouts! That's where you're confused. GOVT. bailouts create moral hazard as do social programs. I know so many people who haven't saved for retirement because they think the govt. will look after them! Pension funds across the world are woefully underfunded, even in America where tax returns have never been higher but the debt continues to grow. Monopolies are caused by govt. regulations, you can see it happening everyday, small companies have a huge hurdle in complying to all the new laws, taxes and rules coming out on a daily basis, more and more only big companies have the ability to weather this onslaught. The easiest way for a small business man to make money is sell his business to a bigger one. That's what's really happening on the ground, not what you or govt. think should happen, this is the reality of small business owners you, or govt. , seem to have no idea about, that you can make a law and it will be so without consequences or reaction from the invisible hand. Austerity happens at the most personal level all the way up, you cannot continually spend more than you earn, there is no conspiracy, it's just what happens, sooner or later you run out of other people's money, something socialists never seem to understand just how true and poignant those words are.

ReplyVote up (106)down (77)
Original comment

What do you mean by a fair society? Fair to whom? There can only be fairness under law, all else depends on the individual. Laissez fair capitalism , or the closer you get to it, is the by far the best way of raising the living standards of all of society. With out the risk to reward that entrepreneurs, that is job creators, need to expend capital and energy then you'd sink into the quagmire of a non productive, wasteful central planned economy. Nobody wins. Fair the way you mean it cannot exist in a free society where men are allowed to reach their full potential, and, in doing so, benefit all those he brings along for the ride. Fairness to you means wealth redistribution, sounds great, but in reality wealth goes where it's treated best and higher taxes just means the wealthy take their money and jobs elsewhere. It's already happened. Fairness in law is what we need and the govt. out of our businesses so we can do what we do best. That is creating jobs and wealth for everyone in a free environment with only the constraints of common law. The Greeks went broke because they have a ridiculous welfare system that successive govt. used to buy votes with and borrowed money to pay for it. Very few people or companies can do that, only govt. can borrow so much so they bankrupt an entire country! Countries are bankrupted by govt. never people or companies. They know their tax revenues, they should budget accordingly. Socialists always argue the same point...if only we could get more taxes! Do you really believe they would stop spending more than they bring in? How can you have "laissez faire capitalist bankers" (what does that even mean?)getting a bailout? Under laissez faire capitalist system they would be no bailouts! That's where you're confused. GOVT. bailouts create moral hazard as do social programs. I know so many people who haven't saved for retirement because they think the govt. will look after them! Pension funds across the world are woefully underfunded, even in America where tax returns have never been higher but the debt continues to grow. Monopolies are caused by govt. regulations, you can see it happening everyday, small companies have a huge hurdle in complying to all the new laws, taxes and rules coming out on a daily basis, more and more only big companies have the ability to weather this onslaught. The easiest way for a small business man to make money is sell his business to a bigger one. That's what's really happening on the ground, not what you or govt. think should happen, this is the reality of small business owners you, or govt. , seem to have no idea about, that you can make a law and it will be so without consequences or reaction from the invisible hand. Austerity happens at the most personal level all the way up, you cannot continually spend more than you earn, there is no conspiracy, it's just what happens, sooner or later you run out of other people's money, something socialists never seem to understand just how true and poignant those words are.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (838 days ago)

You made a lot of points, too many for me to respond to all, so I'll just choose a few.

"What do you mean by a fair society?" That's for society to decide. But perhaps one good measure is wealth distribution. A simple comparison between people's idea of ideal wealth distribution, and reality, should show whether we're on track to creating a society that people want to be a part of. This video talks about just that: LINK

"Laissez fair capitalism , or the closer you get to it, is the by far the best way of raising the living standards of all of society." No it's not. Scandinavia has a far higher standard of living than USA or Somalia, both of which run under different flavours of laissez faire capitalism. Scandinavian countries are socialist democracies, and I would say the best "socialist" models to learn from.

"Socialists always argue the same point...if only we could get more taxes!" No they don't. They argue that if people invest in their society, the gains for everyone will be higher than if people just look after themselves. Paying taxes should be about investing in society. How those taxes are spent is the problem. In a good socialist system, those taxes are well spent and return more than they cost. Good national health and education systems create a healthy and smart workforce able to compete better in a global market, improving the economy for the nation, and therefore the tax intake. Sensible regulations keep cowboys and corruption out. And a happy population is less likely to riot. Of course things are not that easy or simple, but that is the democratic socialist's strategy to creating a better world.

Compare with laissez faire capitalism, ie. minimal "interference" from government, so that people can just get on with making money. For laissez faire capitalism to work well, everybody would have to be nice and respect everybody else. Otherwise, highly-driven power-mad individuals will eventually rise to positions of power, because there are no regulations to keep them in check, and the world will be run by fewer and fewer corporations. Sound familiar?

I prefer socialist strategy. I think it stands a better chance of creating a world I'd rather live in.

"The easiest way for a small business man to make money is sell his business to a bigger one." The easiest way for a big business to compete with the small business, is to buy it. So both big and small businesses are happy. But easiest is not always smart.

As a one-off deal, it's great. Everybody is happy. But as a trend, at some point it becomes problematic because the ultimate finale is that one business owns the world. That is the mother of dictatorships.

ReplyVote up (111)down (150)
Original comment

You made a lot of points, too many for me to respond to all, so I'll just choose a few.

"What do you mean by a fair society?" That's for society to decide. But perhaps one good measure is wealth distribution. A simple comparison between people's idea of ideal wealth distribution, and reality, should show whether we're on track to creating a society that people want to be a part of. This video talks about just that: LINK

"Laissez fair capitalism , or the closer you get to it, is the by far the best way of raising the living standards of all of society." No it's not. Scandinavia has a far higher standard of living than USA or Somalia, both of which run under different flavours of laissez faire capitalism. Scandinavian countries are socialist democracies, and I would say the best "socialist" models to learn from.

"Socialists always argue the same point...if only we could get more taxes!" No they don't. They argue that if people invest in their society, the gains for everyone will be higher than if people just look after themselves. Paying taxes should be about investing in society. How those taxes are spent is the problem. In a good socialist system, those taxes are well spent and return more than they cost. Good national health and education systems create a healthy and smart workforce able to compete better in a global market, improving the economy for the nation, and therefore the tax intake. Sensible regulations keep cowboys and corruption out. And a happy population is less likely to riot. Of course things are not that easy or simple, but that is the democratic socialist's strategy to creating a better world.

Compare with laissez faire capitalism, ie. minimal "interference" from government, so that people can just get on with making money. For laissez faire capitalism to work well, everybody would have to be nice and respect everybody else. Otherwise, highly-driven power-mad individuals will eventually rise to positions of power, because there are no regulations to keep them in check, and the world will be run by fewer and fewer corporations. Sound familiar?

I prefer socialist strategy. I think it stands a better chance of creating a world I'd rather live in.

"The easiest way for a small business man to make money is sell his business to a bigger one." The easiest way for a big business to compete with the small business, is to buy it. So both big and small businesses are happy. But easiest is not always smart.

As a one-off deal, it's great. Everybody is happy. But as a trend, at some point it becomes problematic because the ultimate finale is that one business owns the world. That is the mother of dictatorships.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Casey Casey (838 days ago)
Latest comment:

What you say has some merit in some kind of utopian world where everyone is "fair" including govt. which is wise and benevolent but that is not reality. You don't trust people to be that way to other people, but you expect a certain group of people, govt., to be that way inclined...? I don't follow your reasoning and, of course, it's not reality based. You can't regulate against human nature but you can set it free and punish it when it crosses certain lines. Big corporations thrive on regulation, it cuts the smaller businesses out of competition. After a certain size big corporations can't compete with smaller low cost ones so they buy them out. The regulations themselves promote this by making business so hard to do. Just around me there are so many real life examples. Small businessmen, doctors, tradesmen etc. are weighed down by rules and regulations so much so they just want to sell up and move on or in many cases just work for the man, it's easier that way. I read a paper a while ago about the lack of entrepreneurial spirit in those Scandanavian countries you mention, they aren't known for inventing hardly anything, those that do rise above move overseas and take their wealth, ideas and jobs with them. When you say "Sounds familiar.." Yes it does, it's happening today under the most regulatory era in history and turning out exactly as I said it would. We are living in your utopia today, this is what it looks like! Like I said before under a free market system and limited govt. most of those big companies would not exist today because the various bailouts wouldn't have happened, there would be no preferential govt. treatment because govt. wouldn't have the power to give it and smaller, more efficient companies would be exploiting those weaknesses, just like Uber, those very cheap airlines you have, or had, in Britain and many others when allowed to flourish.

ReplyVote up (122)down (87)
Original comment
Latest comment:

What you say has some merit in some kind of utopian world where everyone is "fair" including govt. which is wise and benevolent but that is not reality. You don't trust people to be that way to other people, but you expect a certain group of people, govt., to be that way inclined...? I don't follow your reasoning and, of course, it's not reality based. You can't regulate against human nature but you can set it free and punish it when it crosses certain lines. Big corporations thrive on regulation, it cuts the smaller businesses out of competition. After a certain size big corporations can't compete with smaller low cost ones so they buy them out. The regulations themselves promote this by making business so hard to do. Just around me there are so many real life examples. Small businessmen, doctors, tradesmen etc. are weighed down by rules and regulations so much so they just want to sell up and move on or in many cases just work for the man, it's easier that way. I read a paper a while ago about the lack of entrepreneurial spirit in those Scandanavian countries you mention, they aren't known for inventing hardly anything, those that do rise above move overseas and take their wealth, ideas and jobs with them. When you say "Sounds familiar.." Yes it does, it's happening today under the most regulatory era in history and turning out exactly as I said it would. We are living in your utopia today, this is what it looks like! Like I said before under a free market system and limited govt. most of those big companies would not exist today because the various bailouts wouldn't have happened, there would be no preferential govt. treatment because govt. wouldn't have the power to give it and smaller, more efficient companies would be exploiting those weaknesses, just like Uber, those very cheap airlines you have, or had, in Britain and many others when allowed to flourish.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: leftists are dumb (840 days ago)

Walter you moron, The government of Greece borrowed the money on behalf of the people. The people rewarded the government by voting them back in. If they didn't want to get into this spiral of debt, then they should of voted differently.

ReplyVote up (113)down (95)
Original comment

Walter you moron, The government of Greece borrowed the money on behalf of the people. The people rewarded the government by voting them back in. If they didn't want to get into this spiral of debt, then they should of voted differently.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (840 days ago)

Warning. Don't feed trolls. They thrive of prejudice and excrete ignorance.

ReplyVote up (109)down (95)
Original comment

Warning. Don't feed trolls. They thrive of prejudice and excrete ignorance.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: leftists are dumb (840 days ago)

Yep thats right. Lets look at this another way. If greece defaults on its interest payments, the banks wont lend to them and everyone in Greece dies of hunger. This is the sort of thing that happens within La la la socialist economies.The Greek people borrowed and misspent too much money, and the Greek people have to pay it back, Ta da

ReplyVote up (86)down (150)
Original comment

Yep thats right. Lets look at this another way. If greece defaults on its interest payments, the banks wont lend to them and everyone in Greece dies of hunger. This is the sort of thing that happens within La la la socialist economies.The Greek people borrowed and misspent too much money, and the Greek people have to pay it back, Ta da

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Σωκράτης (840 days ago)

είσα ι βλάκ&a lpha;ς

ReplyVote up (121)down (96)
Original comment

είσα ι βλάκ&a lpha;ς

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: leftists are dumb (840 days ago)

Ah random greek letters

ReplyVote up (108)down (92)
Original comment

Ah random greek letters

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Wulfrune Wulfrune (842 days ago)

The fat ugly old bint is only jealous, because no one in their right mind word ever be so desperate enough to abuse her. Haters gotta hate.

ReplyVote up (161)down (170)
Original comment

The fat ugly old bint is only jealous, because no one in their right mind word ever be so desperate enough to abuse her. Haters gotta hate.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Trainbuff (841 days ago)

Still way above your league pal..

ReplyVote up (114)down (107)
Original comment

Still way above your league pal..

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
Jeremy Corbyn: Labour is a threat to bankers
Jeremy Corbyn: Labour is a threat to bankers
Brexit is for the richest in our country...
Brexit is for the richest in our country...
Which way would UK have voted if they knew divorce bill would be £50 billion?
Which way would UK have voted if they knew divorce bill would be £50 billion?
Gordon Brown - Pentagon misled UK over weapons of mass destruction
Gordon Brown - Pentagon misled UK over weapons of mass destruction
Interview with Jeremy Corbyn - Brexit and other news
Interview with Jeremy Corbyn - Brexit and other news