It’s the appeal to simpletons.
Bertie did it for years as well.
This is the sort of living conditions millions lived in in the 1950s in the UK
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/10/01/1412187966684_wps_1_These_images_are_supplied.jpg
There are no glorious days to hark back to in the UK unless you are upper crust.
A foreign owned media play these simpletons for fools.
http://i.huffpost.com/gen/3401220/thumbs/o-ED-MILIBAND-SANDWICH-570.jpg
Sanders or Warren, or indeed any democrat other than Clinton, would have beaten Trump. If the Democrats weren’t such a shambles in the US, they should win every election. The simple reason is how the economic landscape has changed in the US over the past few decades. Roughly 50% of the population is now receiving government assistance of some form or another, so whatever percentage of them that vote should always vote Democratic, as they are the party who are most likely to continue or expand government assistance programs. Never mind the fact that a significant portion of the cost of these programs is being passed on to future generations.
Although socialism is still a toxic concept among much of the US electorate, and it would be used against Sanders or Warren, there are enough among the working population who don’t receive government assistance who would vote for any Democratic nominee other than Clinton. It’s remarkable that six months after the election, so many people still don’t get that the Democrats lost because of their appalling arrogance in running such a toxic candidate.
That’s it in a nutshell Labane.
She’s a disastrous character.
And the other side of that is how ridiculous the GOP is, that Trump emerged.
330 million people and those two bozos were offered up.
On another thread, you correctly state that wealth inequality is a major issue.
Not only is it a major issue, it is the major issue of our time.
Yet you consistently shill for a candidate that is attempting to implement an extreme form of wealth redistribution in favour of the richest, and vilified the one candidate, Bernie Sanders, who had a programme that pledged to tackle that inequality.
This simply doesn’t tally.
The easiest lies to swallow are the really big ones, it appears.
Class division in Germany and the Scandinavian countries has never been an issue like it has in the UK.
Employers and workers have always seen each other as enemies in the UK. That’s not the case to nearly the same extent in Germany and Scandinavia, which has enabled a much more inclusive and consensus-led approach to business decisions to be fostered as opposed to the autocratic style of leadership that has traditionally existed in the UK.
Wealth inequality is a problem, but not the major economic problem of our times. The major problem is the destruction of traditional jobs (industry, retail, etc) and failure of the political and education system to prepare people (unemployed and young people entering the workforce) for the jobs that are needed in today’s economy, rather than the economy of 20 years ago. Companies in the US struggle to fill positions as the required skill sets are not there, even though there are 95M not in the workforce, a large percentage of whom could and should be working.
I don’t like Sanders because of his anti-business rhetoric, which extends beyond large corporations to anyone in the top 1 - 2%. Small business is the employment lifeblood of a capitalist economy, a household income of say $200K in the US is in the top 2%. If these people are a problem, the people who employ much more than large corporations (90% of US companies employ less than 20 people) then you can only conclude Sanders is a deluded nutcase.
Yeah, Germany operates its class division on a larger scale instead, like say, against all of Greece.
This is a function of lack of EU banking and financial integration.
More integration, not less, would help to solve such things.
It’s a function of a basic lack of solidarity on behalf of the powerful in Europe. You know, that thing that Europe was supposed to be all about.
I agree, but it’s also a function of what I said.
Trades and technical skills are highly valued and encouraged in Germany.
Their education system is set up specifically to funnel the sorts that do badly in school here into trades.
They are an enormous exporter, first or second in the world, euro or not. All high value goods and services.
There’s the model of success in the EU. And those ridiculous cunts in the UK voted for magic beans.
I wouldn’t quite put it on a par with the African famines sid.
This is brilliant, a load of thick oirish apes and yes men riddled with insecurity peddling their “for the eu to survive, Britain must fail” eu propaganda 
you couldn’t make it up
The decline of industry and retail is to a large extent a function of wealth inequality. Small businesses cannot hope to survive if the working and middle classes see their real incomes decline. The more the game is rigged in favour of those at the top and the more wealth that is taken out of the economy and lies unproductive, the more that effect is accentuated. Demand is what drives small business and wealth inequality destroys demand.
From 1966 to 2011, the bottom 90% of Americans saw their income increase by $59 adjusted for inflation while the top 10% saw their incomes increase by an average $116,071 adjusted for inflation. That’s an ocean of demand destroyed right there.
For all its faults, Ireland is actually a very good example of how state investment in third level education has prepared young people to adapt to changing work environments and high skill professions. Multi-nationals wouldn’t come here if there wasn’t a highly-educated workforce and the state is key in providing it.
Sanders is the victim of rhetoric over small business, not the purveyor of it. He supported the 2010 Small Business Act which invested 30 billion dollars in small business. His policies on education were squarely aimed at addressing skills shortages and his stance on keeping net neutrality is pro-small business. Trump wants to tear up net neutrality. That’s anti-small-business. Trump’s immigration policies are disastrous for small business.
Trump only cares about big business. Obama actually took small business seriously and appointed qualified people to engage with it. Trump appointed Vince McMahon’s wife.
Hacked, the book about Levenson inquiry, is a fair insight into the poisonous nature of much of the media in Britain. It would make you sick to your stomach what they were getting up to. And no consequences whatsoever seemingly for the protagonists
Trump is even less short sighted than that Sid, he is not even pro big business so much as he is pro current business.
Untold: The Daniel Morgan murder is a brilliant podcast that touches on the Leveson enquiry and its links to corrupt cops etc
Just had a look at it there. Sounds excellent. Will have a listen. Cheers for tip
[quote=“Sidney, post:2573, topic:19239, full:true”]
From 1966 to 2011, the bottom 90% of Americans saw their income increase by $59 adjusted for inflation while the top 10% saw their incomes increase by an average $116,071 adjusted for inflation. That’s an ocean of demand destroyed right there.
For all its faults, Ireland is actually a very good example of how state investment in third level education has prepared young people to adapt to changing work environments and high skill professions. Multi-nationals wouldn’t come here if there wasn’t a highly-educated workforce and the state is key in providing it.
Sanders is the victim of rhetoric over small business, not the purveyor of it. He supported the 2010 Small Business Act which invested 30 billion dollars in small business. His policies on education were squarely aimed at addressing skills shortages and his stance on keeping net neutrality is pro-small business. Trump wants to tear up net neutrality. That’s anti-small-business. Trump’s immigration policies are disastrous for small business.[/quote]
Why do you think income for the bottom 90% has stagnated over the past several decades? First of all only approximately half of that number are in the work force, the other half are dependent on the government. The biggest reason is that the decent paying jobs have gone as manufacturing and services were outsourced. Other than HRC being a horrible candidate, that’s the second reason Trump was elected, as he is the first presidential candidate to really make that issue a main plank of his campaign. Outsourcing didn’t just impact employment with large corporations, lots of small businesses were involved in supporting larger business, sub contracting, etc.
Are you having a laugh about Obama helping small business? Visit the US and talk to some small business owners, and ask them what they think of Obama. All they have seen under Obama is high costs in the form of onerous regulations. The cost per employee for small business to comply with federal and local regulations is almost $12K per employee, and a whopping $35K for manufacturing companies with less than 50 companies (the average for all businesses is $20K so there’s a huge penalty on small businesses).
The fundamental issue however is the tax system which encourages multinationals to offshore and retain their profits in tax havens, while burdening small businesses who have no such option. Reforming the tax system isn’t easy however as both parties are in the pockets of the MNCs, and anyone thinking otherwise is deluded. Trump at least has a shot at getting it done as he understands how business operates, unlike Obama and Sanders in particular who never worked a day of his life in the private sector.
I agree with you on Ireland.
What would go into making up that cost? PRSI or equivalent? Seems ridiculous
