Ireland needs socialism, says President McAleese

Elevator

This silly woman again, I got the head ate off me in my own home last weekend over her. Our friend who lives in dubland and works in public sector was down visiting us over the weekend and she was talking about the night mary was on the late late. "oh she comes across a lovely woman" "I'd say she's lovely" blah blah blah!!! To which I replied that every word she spoke was scripted for weeks in the run up to the show and that she has the same PR company handling her affairs as the church. I was made feel like a bollix after that so I got up and left the house for hours. Silly girls getting excited cos other girls are in power tho. If ye weren't contributing 50% of the taxes these days they wouldn't have a hope. Feminism my hole. There was a reason behind womens lib movements and it wasn't freedom. Mary Macaleese hhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahhhahahahhhahahahhahha

meditraitor

Elevator wrote: »

This silly woman again, I got the head ate off me in my own home last weekend over her. Our friend who lives in dubland and works in public sector was down visiting us over the weekend and she was talking about the night mary was on the late late. "oh she comes across a lovely woman" "I'd say she's lovely" blah blah blah!!! To which I replied that every word she spoke was scripted for weeks in the run up to the show and that she has the same PR company handling her affairs as the church. I was made feel like a bollix after that so I got up and left the house for hours. Silly girls getting excited cos other girls are in power tho. If ye weren't contributing 50% of the taxes these days they wouldn't have a hope. Feminism my hole. There was a reason behind womens lib movements and it wasn't freedom. Mary Macaleese hhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahhhahahahhhahahahhahha

Why the long post?

sirromo

imme wrote:

Threads in this section of Boards generally go off-topic. They tend to stray. Is that a good thing?

I have no problem at all with a thread going off-topic.

imme wrote:

The opening post was changed by the OP, so maybe some of the later posters were arguing a new line from the earlier posters.

The inaccurate and sensationalist thread title is what needs to be changed. Mary McAleese did not say that we need socialism and the person who claimed otherwise should be prepared to either defend the claim or withdraw it.

Elevator

meditraitor wrote: »

Why the long post?

Cos it went that way. It was a bit of a rant that ended up looking like a rant too. Ah well we still don't need Mary for much really

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

imme

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

you seem to be looking for something that doesn't exist.
Does the President advocate collectivisation, state ownership of the means of production etc.

Are you honestly saying that the Meitheal that used to occur years ago was a form of socialism. HONESTLY???

It was a process whereby neighbouring farmers would assist each other at harvest time. Are you saying this is socialism, helping out your neighbour. HONESTLY???

P. Breathnach

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I don't know how you arrive at an authoritative analysis of McAleese's understanding of the idea of a meitheal on the basis of a romanticised (even deValera-ish) suggestion. Neither have I ever noticed McAleese advocate anything resembling socialism at any time in any forum.

The core idea of the meitheal is social, not economic, and does not challenge the ideas of ownership of property or the taking of profit. How is a friendly assembly of neighbours to save the hay a socialist exercise?

I don't mind if people discuss the merits of socialism (although many here don't discuss it: they simply regard it as a bad thing). But I think discussing McAleese's socialism is akin to playing an electric guitar under water.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

P. Breathnach

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yes.

and that it amounts to a call for social and economic collectivism.

No.

ei.sdraob

P. Breathnach wrote: »

No.

so who pays for the mess the banks and the country are in?

is it not the "collective society" ?

everybody in the state has to "band together" with the subset called "the taxpayer" shouldering most of the cost, and for what? a mess largely created by about a few hundred people in power who walk away unscratched??

does that not sound remarkably like what happens(ed) in socialistic/communist countries where the elite ruling "party" get everyone in the state to pay for their mistakes?

/

imme

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Are you being facetious?

If you believe the President is a socialist (as if that's a dirty word or something) why did she wait until so late in her 2nd term of the Presidency to start giving coded messages.

In their website www.yourcountryyourcall.com they say that the competition is to reward suggestions. I believe it's to get ideas generated and get people thinking about the contributions of others. Is that socialism. Is it the fact that the competition is open to all that upsets people. Maybe it should only be open to multi-national corporations, inudtrialists, investors, innovators, the powerful.

Actually this thread and the your country your call issue reminds me of one of my earlier threads http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055790793
Maybe the President reads Boards? Hello Mrs President;) if you're watching.:cool:

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

P. Breathnach

ei.sdraob wrote: »

so who pays for the mess the banks and the country are in?

is it not the "collective society" ?

everybody in the state has to "band together" with the subset called "the taxpayer" shouldering most of the cost, and for what? a mess largely created by about a few hundred people in power who walk away unscratched??

does that not sound remarkably like what happens(ed) in socialistic/communist countries where the elite ruling "party" get everyone in the state to pay for their mistakes?

/

That's one helluva non sequitur.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

P. Breathnach

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You are trying incredibly hard to make a case out of almost nothing. Where, say, six farm families came together to save the hay on one farm, then did the same on the next farm, and on until the hay was saved on all six farms, you could say that everybody had shared the workload and the fruits without on wisp of grass changing ownership.

Ironically, thanks to the advances brought to us by individualist capitalism, one person with a combine harvester can now do in an afternoon the work that would have taken all those peasants several days. The meitheal fell by the wayside because people discovered a better way forward. We now need to keep on moving forward rather than being seduced by these misty-eyed visions of paradisaical collectivism.

I agree that times have changed, and that many of the changes have been beneficial. I also agree that McAleese's rhetoric is misty-eyed, and may merit some good-humoured ridicule. But what I do not agree is that she is advocating a socialist form of collectivism. What I see her as advocating is community spirit, the idea that neighbours help one another. I'm for that. I know it runs contrary to the spirit of libertarianism, but that doesn't bother me.

peasant

ei.sdraob wrote: »

so who pays for the mess the banks and the country are in?

is it not the "collective society" ?

everybody in the state has to "band together" with the subset called "the taxpayer" shouldering most of the cost, and for what? a mess largely created by about a few hundred people in power who walk away unscratched??

does that not sound remarkably like what happens(ed) in socialistic/communist countries where the elite ruling "party" get everyone in the state to pay for their mistakes?

Correct in all points bar one ...it wasn't socialist/communist when so called socialist/communist countries did it, nor is it now when FF is doing it.

Socialism is about the re-distribution of wealth, not the re-distribution of bad debt.

sirromo

donegalfella wrote:

This post has been deleted.

If someone was to express admiration for the democratic virtues of ancient Athens would you assume that they wanted to revive a slave-owning society?

It's obvious that Mary McAleese was expressing admiration for the values of rural Ireland, not for the economics or politics of rural Ireland. And if she had been arguing for the economics of rural Ireland you could hardly claim that those economics or politics would be socialist. Whatever else you say about the Irish economy of fifty or sixty years, socialist is was certainly not.

donegalfella wrote:

So I think the claim is quite defensible.

You've claimed that Mary McAleese said we need socialism. I have seen nothing to indicate that she either said or hinted at the need for socialism in this country.

donegalfella wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Sharing the workload and sharing the fruits on it's own is not socialism. People can voluntarily enter into arrangements where they share the workload the fruits of that workload. It becomes socialism only when the arrangement ceases to be voluntary.

donegalfella wrote:

This post has been deleted.

And what's wrong with that? As long as it's voluntary, where's the problem?

It's part of the job of the head of state to encourage and reward people who voluntarily contribute to the greater good of their country.

ei.sdraob

peasant wrote: »

Correct in all points bar one ...it wasn't socialist/communist when so called socialist/communist countries did it, nor is it now when FF is doing it.

Socialism is about the re-distribution of wealth, not the re-distribution of bad debt.

so what is it then?
it certainly aint capitalism where the bad debt would disappear in a bankruptcy/liquidation


and btw you are wrong, let me explain:
* Banks put down loans (ie debt) under Assets when they do their books
* "wealth" is often contained in assets
* these "assets" are being dumped on the general population

so there we have it, this is redistribution of wealth

QED



debt is often considered a form of "wealth"

look at a countries GDP figures, a country borrows a few billion and suddenly its GDP goes up, they didnt create any "wealth" it was just borrowed

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

whynotwhycanti

ei.sdraob wrote: »

so what is it then?
it certainly aint capitalism where the bad debt would disappear in a bankruptcy/liquidation


and btw you are wrong, let me explain:
* Banks put down loans (ie debt) under Assets when they do their books
* "wealth" is often contained in assets
* these "assets" are being dumped on the general population

so there we have it, this is redistribution of wealth

QED



debt is often considered a form of "wealth"

look at a countries GDP figures, a country borrows a few billion and suddenly its GDP goes up, they didnt create any "wealth" it was just borrowed

As much as i hate Nama and everything it entails, the bailing out of private banking corporations is not socialist. I know you wish it was but it just isn't. I do wish we could stick by the fundamental economic principles that put these banks in this position in the first place and let them become bankrupt but it just won't happen. Theres too much back scratching and vested interest to let this happen. But if you think Nama is some sort of solcialist ideal, it is not. In America, the bail out of the banks, which under your definition is socialist was from the banks paying millions to lobbyists to lobby congress. And since when did FF become a leftist party enforcing socialist ideals? Thats news to me.

peasant

ei.sdraob wrote: »

and btw you are wrong, let me explain:
* Banks put down loans (ie debt) under Assets when they do their books
* "wealth" is often contained in assets
* these "assets" are being dumped on the general population

so there we have it, this is redistribution of wealth

QED



debt is often considered a form of "wealth"

look at a countries GDP figures, a country borrows a few billion and suddenly its GDP goes up, they didnt create any "wealth" it was just borrowed

Except that a proper, by the book socialist system would not have any debt.

Debt as an instrument of making money, debt as a "currency" is a capitalist tool.

ei.sdraob

peasant wrote: »

Except that a proper, by the book socialist system would not have any debt.

Debt as an instrument of making money, debt as a "currency" is a capitalist tool.

"by the book" socialist systems (hello North Korea) dont have much money or wealth for that matter :P

question: what book are you referring too?


let me remind you of 2 instruments:
* bankruptcy
* liquidation

these are used to "sort" out situations like this in a proper <AUSTRIAN> capitalist system


bailouts and "stimulus's" are the love child of Keynes, who let me remind you was quite fond of socialist regimes of his time

ei.sdraob

"Lemon socialism" is a pejorative term for government support of private-sector companies whose imminent collapse is perceived to threaten broader economic stability. It is not a current within socialism per se; rather, it points to a corruption of free-market capitalist systems, which would normally allow defective companies ("lemons") to fail. The most common government interventions that earn the term involve infusions of government capital, as in bailouts, and may include some government control over company decision-making, as in nationalization.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_socialism

well thats that argument so

it appears were both right @Peasant to some degree

edit: i am trademarking the term "Banana Socialism" to describe Ireland

whynotwhycanti

Maybe we have a new breed of capitalists. If we take the banks, Nama has given them a new lease of life. Under the economic principles that they follow they should be bankrupt and no longer exist. Some people on here think Nama is a socialist idea. Well if we take it that it is, it is being welcomed with open arms by the advocates of the capitalistic system, the banks. Maybe, they are becoming so adaptive that to remain solvent and to not become bankrupt involves embracing all types of ideas, left and right of the political spectrum. They will follow capitalism for profits but to ensure losses do not cripple them they then move to a different type of policy and try to spread the losses ensuring they come out the other side. It is quite ingenious actually as the risks of them failing in the capitalistic system are reduced by their sudden embracing of a completely different type of ideal, government bail out money from the taxpayer.

It reminded me of a story on sky news where they were trying to label Ambramovich and all those oil tycoons in Russia as rogue capitalists. I had never heard of a ‘rogue capitalist’ but apparently they are different to the standard capitalist although sky news didn’t really care to define how.

ei.sdraob

whynotwhycanti wrote: »

Maybe we have a new breed of capitalists.

as I pointed out earlier the teachings of Keynes are in fashion now

whynotwhycanti wrote: »

If we take the banks, Nama has given them a new lease of life.

a what? really they are still zombie banks

whynotwhycanti wrote: »

Under the economic principles that they follow they should be bankrupt and no longer exist and new or existing banks would step into the void.

let me fix that for you

whynotwhycanti wrote: »

Some people on here think Nama is a socialist idea.

see my post above yours

peasant

ei.sdraob wrote: »

"by the book" socialist systems (hello North Korea) dont have much money or wealth for that matter :P

question: what book are you referring too?

All attempts at creating a socialist society so far have failed at the very first stage ...the creation of the socialist individual.

The human mindset simply is not able for socialism as we are far to individualistic and egotistic for the system to work. There isn't, there never was and there probably never will be a pure socialist society.

All you ever had is watered down compromises that give the ideal of socialism a bad name.

The only reasons why the term "socialism" still survives is because deep down the ideal of share and share alike, peace on earth and freedom from exploitation and imperialistic opression is a good one (if it only worked ) ...and because it has become the household swearword and scapegoat for libertarians :pac:

whynotwhycanti

ei.sdraob wrote: »

as I pointed out earlier the teachings of Keynes are in fashion now



a what? really they are still zombie banks



let me fix that for you




see my post above yours

Okay let me read the link re: Keynes, i think i will find it interesting.

I agree they are zombie banks, but still operational with a board of executives getting a pretty penny. In reality they should no longer exist and i also agree that other banks would have taken their place, not the ridiculous scaremongering that we are led to believe if they had been left to fail.

Laminations

sirromo wrote: »

And what's wrong with that? As long as it's voluntary, where's the problem?
.

DF as a libertarian believes in live and let live. Its quite obvious he also believes in die and let die. I wouldn't rely on a libertarian to save me if i was drowning, sure why should they get their feet wet?

As for this whole thread, its obvious looking at the thanks in the first two posts that the ridiculous OP got a few thanks and the following post stating how ridiculous the OP was got plenty of support. Watch out for that red under the bed! Nothing wrong with pulling together, and quoting Rand doesn't make you right.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

peasant

Laminations wrote: »

Nothing wrong with pulling together,

once everybody pulls on the same rope and in the same direction towards a positive end for all involved in the pulling.

What NAMA and the bank bailouts are doing is pulling everybody closer together so that no-one gets missed when the shyte gets dumped on us.

And once again you will find that there are dumpers and dumpees ...a select few that will walk away from this smelling of roses and a large mass that will walk away stinking ...if they walk at all.


The question to ask the president is; what was her motivation in asking us to pull together ...to achieve something positive ...or to make us willing receptacles for the brown rain?