Artful Dodger: love it,,,, agree with that utterly and completely...

Artful Dodger:

> It doesn’t look like socialism panned out the way they promised you, eh? Shocker.

Could it be perhaps that what failed is not socialism, but capitalism? After all. the UK is a capitalist country. Capitalism has tried to sell consumerism as a cure for the ills of the world. To paraphrase "leading" economists, if a nations consumption is increased, so is its economic output. The riots in the UK are a failure of consumerism. Fast food, cheap trashy disposables, electronic trinkets and pseudofashion are not substitutes for a beleif system, and they do not provide an outlet for social discontent. Bourgeois right wing "experts" will now appoint themselves as arbiters of what is good and bad. Yet in their traditional right wing hatred of the working class these men will blame "lack of morality" and "socialism" for what in essence is a failure of capitalism. This si the same failure that makes young men take firearms, walk into a school and shoot their classmates. This is the morality of television and video games. We don't see these "experts" say anything about how governments have done everything in their power to let youth be exposed to violence, pornography and the glorification of crime in the name of "freedom of expression" and allowing media companies their right to "free enterprise", even if it means poisoning the minds of our world's youth. Profits for video game makers, TV and movie producers, pornographers and media barons are more important than educating youth and curtailing the destructive, violent and mysogynistic indoctrination of our children.

So what is to blame, socialism, or the capitalist "free enterprise" that allows the degradation of our youth in the name of profit?

Übergeek 바둑이: No. Socialism has failed. Nice try tho.

Artful Dodger: So's capitalism. A free market ends up with monopolies who endeavour to rip off everyone. Or as we have seen recently in the UK, unable to live upto their contractual obligations or don't care if as a result their cost cutting leads to abuse.

While money creation for stock prices and shareholders is the highest priority, accountability be damned... that's why our governments need to regulate.

(V): Stop buying products from corporations and see how far that gets you.

Your analisis is faulty.

Regulating is one thing. Over regulating another.

Artful Dodger: .. pretty good when I goto smaller unchained stores. I got 80% off recently by avoiding a chain of stores and going to a local shop and getting a deal.

Some goods are inherently cheaper by the small independents not having to spend millions on advertising.

My analysis is based on real events in the UK.

"Regulating is one thing. Over regulating another."

If we could trust the men in suits fine.... but as the banks have shown that left as they were with less regulation, businesses the bigger they are will break such regulation due to lack of accountability.

(V): You're still buying products from major corporations. Can't be avoided. And it's faulty reasoning to overgeneralize when your trying to make a point. Not all businesses try to rip people off. Fact is, most don't.

As for chain stores, you almost ALWAYS save money shopping there. Overhead doesn't matter when you sell in bulk. That's why so many mom and pop's have gone out of business. It's tough to compete with a huge store.

Artful Dodger: As for chain stores, you almost ALWAYS save money shopping there. Overhead doesn't matter when you sell in bulk. That's why so many mom and pop's have gone out of business. It's tough to compete with a huge store.

Exactly. If I got 80% off on each purchase I make “by avoiding a chain of stores and going to a local shop”, the chain stores would soon go bankrupt.

Pedro Martínez: Exactly. And a one time purchase of an item where you save 80% means nothing. Here in the US, if a store actually was selling an item that was 80% less than what the big store was selling it for, they'd match that price. Some big stores will match plus 10%. People want to save money and that's why places like Walmart in the US are so huge.

Artful Dodger: Many chains have gone out of business here due to overheads. Most of what the chains sell can be bought from small shops or (what I call) warehouse internet shops for 50% or more off.... and one of them due to a stupid law (soon to be gone??)

..... as for "mom and pop's" ... we've seen so many new ones open up in the last few years as people have migrated back to using them in the UK. The area I live in is 80% independents and many offer goods that cannot be bought in chains.

"It's tough to compete with a huge store."

Not if you've got brains.

(V): Complete rubbish. It's near impossible to sell the same things as the big stores sell and stay in business. Most new businesses fail. It's not just about brains (although that does help). You can't compete with a big business like America's Target or Walmart store if you're not already established and well grounded in the community.

You've got to make money at a business and lots of it. You have bills to pay and if you can't meet those bills each month, you're not going to make it. Do some small mom and pops thrive? Yes. Location is one reason. And the type of product being sold is another ingredient for success. But MANY small business have gone the way of the dinosaur because they could no longer compete.

And if you're so smart about it, how come you don't own your own small business if it's so easy? Easy to talk the talk but in reality, you'd fail like so many others. Most fail.

Artful Dodger: The UK figures are a failure rate of about 1/3 regarding new businesses. I cannot be accurate on this due to the variations like we have now where small businesses are not getting the support they use to since the banks screwed up

"You've got to make money at a business and lots of it. You have bills to pay and if you can't meet those bills each month, you're not going to make it."

I know.. that's why before you start a business you need to carefully look at your costings. I learnt that years ago when I managed a shop for someone.. which, I nearly did buy, but backed out of once I looked into some of the shady deals that would have come back onto me via debts I was not willing to pick up... only time I've ever been interested in owning my own shop.

Unlike some banks I look into what I'm thinking of buying.

"You can't compete with a big business like America's Target or Walmart store if you're not already established and well grounded in the community."

As you pointed out... Location, product, cash flow, research, marketing. Many of those I see succeeding are not trying to compete with the big boys, they are not stupid.. Like one part of the one I nearly did own he was beating the big boys on certain crucial goods, but would not keep (despite me constantly telling him) stock levels up... That one item kept people flowing into the shop through that at the time being an essential product to computer users. The humble 3.5" floppy. Branded names cost, unbranded didn't.


.................... "The reason you saw paranoia is because you have your own paranoia about being paranoid."

you need to watch some Kenny Everett as yet again you've missed my point. Gotta love that cold war mentality

Artful Dodger:

> No. Socialism has failed. Nice try tho.

How so? First, can you prove that the riots and socialism are connected, and if so, how? Second, can you prove the points in my post wrong? I argues that the riots came as a result of an ideological and social failure in capitalism. What does socialism have to do with the riots? It is much easier to blame socialism rather than admit that consumer capitalism has gone worng.

Übergeek 바둑이: Where has socialism succeeded?

Artful Dodger:

> Where has socialism succeeded?

The capitalist version of socialism: Sweden, Norway, Austria and others

The communist version is more dubious due to the human rights record: People's Republic of China (the fastest growing economy in the world), Cuba (the best health care and educational system in the western hemisphere)

It all depends on how one defines success: is it wealth? higher standard of living? improvements in per capita income?

You still didn't answer my question: what does socialism have to do with the riots?

Übergeek 바둑이: In Socialism, there's a heavy does of entitlements. When people don't develop a sense of personal responsibility, they tend to be lazy and think that they are owed something just for existing. People in America think they are entitled as well. The unions are a good example. Union members think that since they pay dues, they are entitled to protection in their jobs even to the point that they can't be fired for anything. That's entitlement. And in the unions, this sense of entitlment leads to violence on many occasions. They turn into thugs. All products of socialistic ideas.

Artful Dodger: this is so wrong.

Artful Dodger: Oh, btw. I'm regularly amazed seeing jobless mopes driving fat cars and such. But you have to admit, it fits perfectly in a capitalistic system.