Tonight With Vincent Browne Thread v2.0

ballsymchugh

http://www.hairybaby.com/index.php?page=shop.product_details&flypage=shop.flypage4guys&product_id=1611&category_id=13&category_parent_id=1&manufacturer_id=0&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=26

Bullseye1

Vinney is left of Lenin....but only in words.

MungBean

Armelodie wrote: »

His point was that true capitalism wasn't allowed to happen i.e. letting the banks fail..instead we've privatised the national debt and nationalised the private debt....how is that capitalism?

But what happened was true capitalism. Capitalism is a system to create profit for private enterprise and those profits were protected. Letting the banks fail and the European banking system with it would have been letting capitalism itself fail.

This wasnt the state interfering in private business it was private business drawing on the state to protect it because it had created a situation where it couldnt be allowed to collapse.

BaZmO*

Corsendonk wrote: »

Thats the problem for SF, Pearse is outshining the elder statesmen. Better if Pearse led them into the next GE, he even makes sense to non SF supporters.

I think that's part of the SF plan. The likes of Adams and McGuinness are there to take the flack, legitimise and pave the way within the Republic for the future generation of SF, a generation that doesn't have the baggage of the elder statesmen.

MungBean wrote: »

But what happened was true capitalism. Capitalism is a system to create profit for private enterprise and those profits were protected. Letting the banks fail and the European banking system with it would have been letting capitalism itself fail.

This wasn't the state interfering in private business it was private business drawing on the state to protect it because it had created a situation where it couldn't be allowed to collapse.

It wasn't true capitalism. Maybe capitalism in reality, but true capitalism is quite simple in principal, when allowed to proceed without interference, which hasn't happen in this case.

MungBean

BaZmO* wrote: »

It wasn't true capitalism. Maybe capitalism in reality, but true capitalism is quite simple in principal, when allowed to proceed without interference, which hasn't happen in this case.

Capitalism in reality is true capitalism as far as I see. The inevitable result of a capitalist society is inequality. That inequality as Vincent said arises from incomes and spreads across all aspects of life.

In this case the inequality became apparent in the influence that private business had over sovereign states. Not directly but by simple doing as a capitalism does, grow fast, consume, profit, collapse.

But this time it didnt because its influence and the implication of a collapse have become detrimental to society. This is true capitalism, capitalism that isnt allowed to fail and not only allows individuals and institutions to profit from free market business but also profit from the collapse of that.

evolving_doors

MungBean wrote: »

Capitalism in reality is true capitalism as far as I see. The inevitable result of a capitalist society is inequality. That inequality as Vincent said arises from incomes and spreads across all aspects of life.

In this case the inequality became apparent in the influence that private business had over sovereign states. Not directly but by simple doing as a capitalism does, grow fast, consume, profit, collapse.

But this time it didnt because its influence and the implication of a collapse have become detrimental to society. This is true capitalism, capitalism that isnt allowed to fail and not only allows individuals and institutions to profit from free market business but also profit from the collapse of that.

Hold on a second, capitalism is about taking a risk and reaping the reward, or suffering the losses...this is NOT what happened in ireland, people took the risks, banks took the risks, bondholders took the risks, developers took the risks,, can you explain how they suffered the losses? This is not capitalism...this was government interference..what happened in Iceland was capitalism...banks failed..

BaZmO*

MungBean wrote: »

Capitalism in reality is true capitalism as far as I see.

But you could say that about every Political ideal. Because essentially every Political ideal fails due to the true realities of human nature.

MungBean

Armelodie wrote: »

Hold on a second, capitalism is about taking a risk and reaping the reward, or suffering the losses...this is NOT what happened in ireland, people took the risks, banks took the risks, bondholders took the risks, developers took the risks,, can you explain how they suffered the losses? This is not capitalism...this was government interference..what happened in Iceland was capitalism...banks failed..

No thats gambling, Capitalism is about making profit and thats what the bondholders did. The risks that most bondholders took were minimal, their bonds equivalent to deposits on the list of priorities.

Its a capitalist society, the state didnt interfere with capitalism the state exists in a capitalist frame. The state entered and interfered with private business's such as Anglo, but the reason it had to do so was to protect the banking system from an abrupt collapse. That wouldnt have been in the interests of the country or the union.

So in a capitalist society private investors/banks whatever the bondholders were profited from their investments because if they didnt the entire system, and European economy would have collapsed.

True capitalism is to not only profit but guarantee those profits. Opposite of gambling, its about guaranteed and risk free profits. And thats what happened when the bondholders couldnt be allowed to lose.

P. Breathnach

Is this the television forum or the politics forum?

MungBean

BaZmO* wrote: »

But you could say that about every Political ideal. Because essentially every Political ideal fails due to the true realities of human nature.

Of course but capitalism thrives on the greed in humans, its a system that will fail because of what it thrives on and when it fails it has nowhere to go but down. But the system will not be relinquished as profit can still be made as the system fails, so its an eternally self perpetuating cycle that is powered by greed and the need for profits.

Its was the need for profits that pushed us into this situation, it was need for profit that bailed out the banks (whether their or not it doesnt matter)*, it is need for profit that will get us out as we borrow money from people looking to profit off our misfortune.

*We bailed out the banks to stop the banking system from collapsing and damaging the economy. The one theme that has run through this crisis from the government has been trying to save our reputation as a good place to do business. Nationalising debt isnt socialism, its capitalism.

MungBean

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Is this the television forum or the politics forum?

Vincent Browne thread, just continuing the discussion himself and Ganley were having.

evolving_doors

MungBean wrote: »

No thats gambling, Capitalism is about making profit and thats what the bondholders did. The risks that most bondholders took were minimal, their bonds equivalent to deposits on the list of priorities.

Its a capitalist society, the state didnt interfere with capitalism the state exists in a capitalist frame. The state entered and interfered with private business's such as Anglo, but the reason it had to do so was to protect the banking system from an abrupt collapse. That wouldnt have been in the interests of the country or the union.

So in a capitalist society private investors/banks whatever the bondholders were profited from their investments because if they didnt the entire system, and European economy would have collapsed.

True capitalism is to not only profit but guarantee those profits. Opposite of gambling, its about guaranteed and risk free profits. And thats what happened when the bondholders couldnt be allowed to lose.

So essentially capitalism isn't really capitalism but true capitalism is the real capitalism?
By that logic if I set up a business without my profits being 'guaranteed' then I'm not operating within a capitalist system?... How did the people who bought anglo bonds know that their profits were guaranteed in the first place?

MungBean

Armelodie wrote: »

So essentially capitalism isn't really capitalism but true capitalism is the real capitalism?
By that logic if I set up a business without my profits being 'guaranteed' then I'm not operating within a capitalist system?... How did the people who bought anglo bonds know that their profits were guaranteed in the first place?

I mean capitalism is capitalism. Its a system of making profit from private enterprise. When the state interfered it didnt interrupt capitalism, it was acting in the interests of private enterprise.

The bondholders didnt know their profit was guaranteed, they just lent as they have always lent. But they didnt lose even though the banks failed. Why ? Because the capitalist state wanted to protect its private enterprise but ensuring their profits.

JonathanAnon

I mean capitalism is capitalism. Its a system of making profit from private enterprise. When the state interfered it didnt interrupt capitalism, it was acting in the interests of private enterprise.

I think most reasonable assessments of capitalism would have said that at the very least the unguaranteed bondholders in Anglo should have lost all their money.. it's EU politics, and the fact that they have us over a barrel, that prevents us from adhering to the "rules" of capitalism..

MungBean

JonathanAnon wrote: »

I think most reasonable assessments of capitalism would have said that at the very least the unguaranteed bondholders in Anglo should have lost all their money.. it's EU politics, and the fact that they have us over a barrel, that prevents us from adhering to the "rules" of capitalism..

Your talking about it like the state is outside of capitalism and "interfered" and prevented capitalism from working. What it prevented was the collapse of the bank, and it did so to protect the day to day operation of business's in Ireland. The state isnt outside of capitalism it is a capitalist state.

I think most reasonable assessments would be able to differentiate between capitalism and banking practices. Plenty of business have their debts paid to keep them operational. The state didnt interfere with Anglo the state bought Anglo. As with all the other times business in debt have been bought it was bought for a reason and that reason was capitalist in its nature.

evolving_doors

MungBean wrote: »

I mean capitalism is capitalism. Its a system of making profit from private enterprise. When the state interfered it didnt interrupt capitalism, it was acting in the interests of private enterprise.

The bondholders didnt know their profit was guaranteed, they just lent as they have always lent. But they didnt lose even though the banks failed. Why ? Because the capitalist state wanted to protect its private enterprise but ensuring their profits.

So when brian lenihan guaranteed the bank/bondholders (which was the state interfering in the normal process of failure which is a feature of capitalism i.e. risk and reward) he was acting on behalf of "private enterprise"....now given the fact that he knew had had only a few months to live, how or why do you think it would benefit him?

And by the way the banks in ireland DIDN'T fail, there all still ticking over or have been transferred over to some other entity by the government...surely you can't claim that to be capitalism

Also if you are claiming that the state is itself capitalist..then why the hell is it giving out money for the dole/hospitals/schools etc ...

MungBean

Armelodie wrote: »

So when brian lenihan guaranteed the bank/bondholders (which was the state interfering in the normal process of failure which is a feature of capitalism i.e. risk and reward) he was acting on behalf of "private enterprise"....now given the fact that he knew had had only a few months to live, how or why do you think it would benefit him?

Capitalism is an economic system where privately owned business's operate for profit. Its not about just risk and reward, your talking specifically about gambling or investment which are not the same as lending. Bonds are loans not investments. And your misunderstanding what I'm saying, I'm not saying Lenihan guaranteed the banking debt to benefit himself. I'm saying the government did it to benefit the Irish economy, to protect Irish business's by keeping open a line of credit, to try and stop the economic collapse.

And by the way the banks in ireland DIDN'T fail, there all still ticking over or have been transferred over to some other entity by the government...surely you can't claim that to be capitalism

They did fail. The reason they are still ticking (winding down) is because the government bought them and paid the debts. In capitalism when one entity doesnt want the other to collapse or sees profit or merit in keeping it operational they pay its debts and take equity. Thats what the government did.

Also if you are claiming that the state is itself capitalist..then why the hell is it giving out money for the dole/hospitals/schools etc

As I said capitalism is an economic system, its how this and every other developed country in the world operates. The state is not outside the economic system, sovereign bonds are sold when the state wants money just as a bank bonds are sold when they want money. Its all capitalism and it all revolves around profit.

Skid

Vincent is on his high horse tonight, lecturing us on the woes of Travellers.

irishh_bob

Skid wrote: »

Vincent is on his high horse tonight, lecturing us on the woes of Travellers.

this show will be the equivelent of a sumo wrestler and a jockey sharing a see saw , little balance

JonathanAnon

Vincent makes a token allusion to criminality in the Travelling community, then proceeds to spend the rest of the show allowing Pavey Point to push their agenda.... They take everything from the State and give nothing back... And most of them drive a newer vehicle than I do, yet are claiming social welfare...

I would love just once for Vincent to do a show covering the "other side" of Traveller behaviour... i.e. criminality, unwillingness to work or pay tax or contribute anything to society, illegal littering / parking / trespassing, general troublemaking..

Headshot

ffs

I cant watch this ****e

crustyjuggler

It's a disgrace the amount of discrimination against travelers in this country .

Amber Lamps

is there going to be a discussion back in the studio on this or is it just going to continue with this crap?

Oh_Noes

JonathanAnon wrote: »

most of them drive a newer vehicle than I do, yet are claiming social welfare...

Anecdotal evidence is it?

xi

I wonder were they ever grabbed.

irishh_bob

JonathanAnon wrote: »

Vincent makes a token allusion to criminality in the Travelling community, then proceeds to spend the rest of the show allowing Pavey Point to push their agenda.... They take everything from the State and give nothing back... And most of them drive a newer vehicle than I do, yet are claiming social welfare...

I would love just once for Vincent to do a show covering the "other side" of Traveller behaviour... i.e. criminality, unwillingness to work or pay tax or contribute anything to society, illegal littering / parking / trespassing, general troublemaking..

pc do gooders dont do balance when it comes to liberal sacred cows

JonathanAnon

Oh_Noes wrote: »

Anecdotal evidence is it?

yeah, but no more anecdotal than the sob stories that we are getting right now...

Headshot

mg these women talks some ****e

Plautus

irishh_bob wrote: »

pc do gooders dont do balance when it comes to liberal sacred cows

If there's one thing that gets my goat, it's that. PC this and PC that.

There's no central agenda of PC and no PC hive mind; can we just call it bias on a given issue? I'm an unabashed liberal myself, and I like to think of 'doing good' as a laudible thing. It's like how compassion is rendered as 'bleeding heart socialism' and therefore a bad thing.

The trouble with this programme assuredly is the lack of balance, yes, but there is no doubt that travellers do get a lot of abuse, some of it very unfair and nasty. Many successful professionals are afraid to reveal that they do have a traveller background for fear of prejudice. If finding that unfair makes me PC, so be it.

Amber Lamps

smiling away with them big ol pearlies that their discrimination is the worst in the world