Sad day for Literacy

[Anonymous No.3150561]

>Thousands of UK teenagers cannot read well enough to understand their GCSE exam papers, a large-scale analysis of pupils' reading ability suggests.
>Data on 29,000 teenagers in 1,100 schools in England suggests they have an average reading age of 10 or 11.

>Its findings, based on the 29,000 children using its software, suggest 15 and 16-year-olds in England have an average reading age five years lower than their actual age.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-20346204

Who do you think is to blame, /lit/?

[Anonymous No.3150572]

Joyce

[Anonymous No.3150579]

>>3150572
You blame Joyce?

[Anonymous No.3150588]

>English people
>stupid

You seem surprised?

[Anonymous No.3150589]

>>3150579
Not James Joyce but my Aunt Joyce, she won't let my cousins read books and scoffs at people who read. She's dumb as balls too.

[Anonymous No.3150595]

I blame great expectations. These kids should just be thankful they're not Dickensian urchins covered in soot.

[Anonymous No.3150597]

Well, our schools are kind've shit because teachers have taken the brunt of a bunch of kdis brought up by the derelicts brought up in post-thatcher britain, where entire swathes of the country are unemployed, or precariously employed.

[Anonymous No.3150598]

probably has something to do with literacy being learned rather than natural to people

[Anonymous No.3150605]

It's the illiterate working class bringing the average score down.
>And nearly seven out of 10 GCSE grades are awarded an A* to C.
The other three and a bit are from council estates.

[Anonymous No.3150622]

fucking pakis are ruining this country

[Anonymous No.3150627]

>>3150605
>tfw you google image the word 'chavs' and get to see what England's really like.

[Anonymous No.3150634]

>>3150597
>kind've

Thanks for displaying it for us

[Anonymous No.3150636]

>>3150627
chavs are fucking badass m8

[Anonymous No.3150643]

>>3150561

Thatcher and all neoliberal politics since then.

[Anonymous No.3150663]

Fuck you miss, I dont giv a shit wot me grades are like, you cunt. ur a fuckin mug and u aint gona teach me shit.

[Anonymous No.3150667]

Maggie Thatcher probably

[Anonymous No.3150668]

statist policies, socialist agendas, teacher unions.

[Anonymous No.3150670]

[Anonymous No.3150672]

>>3150667
>>3150668
i blame that nigger obongo

[Anonymous No.3150674]

[Anonymous No.3150677]

>>3150561

Capitalism is to blame, OP

[Anonymous No.3150679]

[Anonymous No.3150681]

[Anonymous No.3150683]

chavs always look like they are having such a good time

i wish i could be so happy

[Anonymous No.3150684]

[Anonymous No.3150685]

http://www.isthatcherdeadyet.co.uk/

[Anonymous No.3150688]

[Anonymous No.3150695]

[Anonymous No.3150697]

>>3150683

HEER HEER YOUS LOT AM TAKIN A PHOTUHGRAPH! FUCKIN' SMILE YOUS CUNTS!

>smile
>appear happy

[Anonymous No.3150700]

>>3150677
7/10
screamed internally

[Anonymous No.3150701]

[Anonymous No.3150703]

>>3150700
I also believe in fully privatizing all schooling

[Anonymous No.3150705]

[Anonymous No.3150710]

>>3150700
This isn't McCarthyian America. Some people disagree with the fundamentals of capitalism. Get used to it.

[Anonymous No.3150711]

>>3150697
>HEER HEER YOUS LOT AM TAKIN A PHOTUHGRAPH! FUCKIN' SMILE YOUS CUNTS!

[Anonymous No.3150715]

>>3150627
u r 1 cheeky kunt m8

[Anonymous No.3150721]

[Anonymous No.3150722]

I can't even imagine what makes Chavs think they're ok at all. Like, they're so trashy, I know hipsters who dress like some of them ironically. Sportswear is big with the alt ladies right now if you didn't know. Guess this is what happens when you leave trashy whites to decide their own style and not just mimic blacks.

[Anonymous No.3150723]

>>3150710
[screamed internally]

[Anonymous No.3150728]

>>3150710

“I'm selfish, impatient and a little insecure. I make mistakes, I am out of control and at times hard to handle. But if you can't handle me at my worst, then you sure as hell don't deserve me at my best.”

[Anonymous No.3150731]

[Anonymous No.3150734]

>>3150722
You just don't get the appeal, which is understandable. Not everyone can like everything.

There is just something very cool about chavs, even their trashy dress. It feels careless but earnest, everything they do really.

[Anonymous No.3150735]

>>3150731

I think this one might be a spoof.

[Anonymous No.3150737]

>tfw American Niggers speak better English than Chavs

[Anonymous No.3150739]

>>3150737

But our upper classes top yours, by a country whatsit.

[Anonymous No.3150740]

>>3150737

[Anonymous No.3150741]

>>3150737
That's just not fair. Everybody speaks English better then English (chavs included).

[Anonymous No.3150743]

>>3150741
>then
you must be English

[Anonymous No.3150745]

>>3150743
I prefer to think of my spell-checker as African-American.

[Anonymous No.3150750]

>>3150627

i wil fukin bang u

[Anonymous No.3150753]

Hahaha, I found a chav on youtube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNACBKwi-As

[Anonymous No.3150756]

Yeah I'd love to visit London one day but am seriously afraid my experience would be ruined by something like this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpSTCtRDums

[Anonymous No.3150759]

>>3150753
chavs talk like valley girls

[Anonymous No.3150766]

>>3150756
This is how Brits treat foreigners.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHwDC7vjXM8

[Anonymous No.3150772]

>>3150753
what the fuck are they doing in a tree

[Anonymous No.3150773]

>>3150561
>>3150572
>>3150579
>>3150588
>>3150589
>>3150595
>>3150597
>>3150598
>>3150605
>>3150622
>>3150627
>>3150634
>>3150636
>>3150643
>>3150663
>>3150667
>>3150668
>>3150670
>>3150672
>>3150674
>>3150677
>>3150679
>>3150681
>>3150683
>>3150684
>>3150685
>>3150688
>>3150695
>>3150697
>>3150700
>>3150701
>>3150703
>>3150705
>>3150710
>>3150711
>>3150715
>>3150721
>>3150722
>>3150723
>>3150728
>>3150731
>>3150734
>>3150735
>>3150737
>>3150739
>>3150740
>>3150741
>>3150743
>>3150745
>>3150750
>>3150753
>>3150756
>>3150759
>>3150766

>Implying reading isn't the exclusive domain of the rich

[Anonymous No.3150774]

>>3150766
I always laugh when the working poor fight and blame each other like that.

[Anonymous No.3150777]

>>3150711
>Fosters

Fuckin' poms choose the worst fucking Aussie beer. Get a Cascade Pale in ya.

[Anonymous No.3150784]

>>3150766
she seems pretty angry, I wonder what happened to her in her life?

[Anonymous No.3150785]

So what do you middle class kids look like, or do you just hide in your houses while the chavs stalk the streets?

[Anonymous No.3150786]

>>3150785
I'm a male model
My portfolio includes JCPenny, H&M, Gap, and Macy's

I'm not middle class though so I guess I'm not qualified to respond.

[Anonymous No.3150787]

>>3150710
>disagree with the fundamentals of capitalism

Fundamentals of capitalism:
Free uncoerced exchange between two or more consenting parties.

by disagreeing with that fundamental, it really brings to light the true motive behind anyone who doesn't like capitalism, which is of course wealth envy.

[Anonymous No.3150788]

>>3150786
>I'm not middle class though

Yes, you are. Unless you wield significant political power, are a landed aristocrat or a major company shareholder, you are middle class.

[Anonymous No.3150790]

>>3150785

[Anonymous No.3150792]

>>3150787
>Free uncoerced exchange between two or more consenting parties.

Nope, try:
>an economic system that is based on private ownership of the means of production and the creation of goods or services for profit.

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

in b4 >wikipedia

[Anonymous No.3150793]

>>3150788
I think he's saying that he's working class, not upper.

[Anonymous No.3150794]

>>3150787
Why is it envy of the rich? Why can't it be a fear of poverty, or contempt for unequal opportunity?

If capitalists had their way in all aspects of life sports wouldn't have referees. Would that create a fair, sporting environment? Would that be an enjoyable game to watch?

[Anonymous No.3150796]

>>3150788
Brits are retarded when it comes to social classes

[Anonymous No.3150797]

>>3150792
that definition, in no way, discounts what i said.

[Anonymous No.3150799]

>>3150788
I live mostly off of daddy's money, to say I'm rich would be an understatement.

In America, political power is wielded by people that donate the most to political campaigns so I suppose I am not middle class in that respect either.

[Anonymous No.3150801]

>>3150797
It does, actually. Your fundamental is either incorrect or incomplete, so making assumptions on the intent of anybody criticizing capitalism based on your fundamental is inherently fallacious, as you've defined capitalism as something it is not in its totality.

[Anonymous No.3150805]

>>3150794
apples and fucking oranges bro

what if the players all had written contracts to not commit penalties, and if they did would be kicked out of the league and shunned. What if the players came up with their own way of keeping play fair.

The state is not the answer to every problem, it is the source of most of them though.

[Anonymous No.3150806]

>>3150799
My mistake. You're basically capitalism's version of an aristocrat.

[Anonymous No.3150812]

>>3150805
What you are describing is essentially the formation of a state and oversight/accountability.

Pure capitalism does not work any more than pure communism, and you share more ideals with socialists than you probably will ever care to admit.

[Anonymous No.3150814]

>>3150805

Capitalism needs the state to continue to function. State and capitalism are highly incestuous.

[Anonymous No.3150815]

>>3150685
>http://www.isthatcherdeadyet.co.uk/
i'm surprised the host of this site has not been imprisoned for hate speech

[Anonymous No.3150816]

>>3150805
do you even game theory?

[Anonymous No.3150818]

>>3150766
Congratulations, you just observed how every "I was here before you" group acts when another group comes onto their territory.

[Anonymous No.3150821]

>>3150818
why do you sound so proud of yourself?

[Anonymous No.3150824]

>>3150821

Proud of HIMSELF? You're the one who got the congratulations.

[Anonymous No.3150825]

>>3150812

Pure communism is actually the only society that can work in the long run. How to achieve communism is the problem we have to grapple with.

[Anonymous No.3150827]

>>3150825
cool unsubstantiated blanket statement bro

[Anonymous No.3150831]

>>3150812
Not that guy, but the government does more harm than good. Socialist heathcare and education are vastly superior as private enterprises. Government bailouts, interfering with oil, absurd taxation rates, harsh drug laws all disrupt monopolies for the worse. The only thing the government should handle is military and police, everything else should be in a free market.

[Anonymous No.3150832]

>>3150825
A couple of dickheads will always end up monopolizing the power

[Anonymous No.3150833]

>>3150815
>http://www.isthatcherdeadyet.co.uk/

Nah, he's not burning a poppy or calling a public figure a cunt or anything evil and reprehensible like that. If he was telling jokes about dead kids, he'd be in chokey already.

[Anonymous No.3150834]

>>3150832

That's actually what happens in capitalism, not communism.

[Anonymous No.3150836]

>>3150801

Not that guy, but the free enterprise aspect concept of what he was saying is corollary to the existence of private ownership of the means of production and selling for a profit. You obviously need mutual, uncoerced exchange for that to happen. Any coercion in exchange is inherently uncapitalistic due to the fact that it violates the private ownership assumption.

[Anonymous No.3150840]

>>3150814
wrong. no state is needed at all. You're thinking of corporatism. Calling what America has today "capitalism" is completely wrong, and i would agree with you that giant corporations and the massive state we have today have a symbiotic relationship, as one cannot exist without the other. But for arguments sake, say Im a farmer and I take my goods to market, sell them, and trade them for other goods. Not seeing where the state is needed in that. No state is needed for free exchange between consenting parties.

[Anonymous No.3150842]

>>3150831
No, unfortunately the profit motive is too powerful and corrupts too easily.

If you give people a way to profit off of other peoples suffering then they certainly will, especially when considering a corporate model.

Government bailouts and absurd taxation is actually a result of not enough oversight in your capitalistic and governing systems.

[Anonymous No.3150843]

>>3150836

Read marx n00b.

[Anonymous No.3150845]

>>3150840
We still need a state to protect the consenting parties from foreign enemies.

[Anonymous No.3150847]

>>3150834

Not necessarily, most monopolies that you see in capitalist systems are due to regulation in favour of those monopolists (rent seeking). De Beers are probably the only one that doesn't fit into that role. In a capitalist system with no barriers to trade, you wouldn't see monopolies (though you could see sizeable companies with notable market power).

[Anonymous No.3150850]

>>3150825
>Pure communism is actually the only society that can work in the long run.
Not really unless you consider permanent stagnation at some point to be the "long run".
You are partially right in that eventually we will need to socialize basic needs throughout society as the productivity increases resulting from automation continue to outstrip the need for labor. Inevitably, some kind of redistribution mechanism will likely have to be put in place to keep the economy running(You need mass consumption to enable mass production and vice versa) but pure communism would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater by stifling innovation. This is without mentioning the inherent inefficiencies within a communist society that exponentially increase as that society grows larger.

[Anonymous No.3150851]

>>3150840
Either your brain still exists in the 1700's or you are 17 years old.

[Anonymous No.3150852]

>>3150840

State is required to defend Private Property. If you privatised everything you would have a communist revolution on your hands within a few years. Capitalists recognise this fact and prop up a military state which can brutally repress any potential revolution.

[Anonymous No.3150858]

>>3150843

I have... whilst he has a few valid points on the business cycle, he completely missed the mark on some of the most obvious axioms of capitalism.

[Anonymous No.3150862]

>>3150851
im trying to break the basis of capitalism down to basic blocks so that i can show how its superior, more fair, and mor non-exploitative than SAVE US GUBMENT

[Anonymous No.3150863]

>>3150858
>whilst
oh lawd

[Anonymous No.3150864]

>>3150862
You are not just a young idealist, your ego tells me you are somehow proud of this ignorance.

[Anonymous No.3150866]

>>3150858

Please tell me how wage-slaves who need to sell their labour-power or die on the street are 'uncoerced'?

[Anonymous No.3150867]

>>3150863

So what if I'm not an American and don't adhere to your spelling rules.

[Anonymous No.3150874]

>>3150867

[Anonymous No.3150878]

>>3150842
>If you give people a way to profit off of other peoples suffering then they certainly will, especially when considering a corporate model.
People suffering is not profitable, people consuming products and generating revenue is.

>Government bailouts and absurd taxation is actually a result of not enough oversight in your capitalistic and governing systems.
Investment bankers traded in mortgages they knew would collapse, the government bailed them out when they did, causing a huge part of the recession. The bank should have been left to collapse so the others could have taken it's place. The government has bailed out everyone from the car to the airplane industry, with financially negative results every time. The worst thing you can do is interfere with monopolies. The absurd taxation is because of government overspending, there is no need for an efficient government to be in debt. The vast majority of money gets wasted in bureaucracy and the rest gets wasted on the government interfering.

[Anonymous No.3150882]

>>3150866
where does that actually happen? or are you just making up nightmare scenarios? Don't worry I'll give you a few minutes to find some obscure examples.

[Anonymous No.3150890]

>>3150866
how would any company make money if everyone was a wage slave? It's in any companies best interest to have a wealthy, healthy population.

[Anonymous No.3150895]

>>3150840
>corporatism
Look up that word before you use it. The USA isn't as corporatist as a nation like Sweden(which uses the social corporatist model). The proper term for what the USA is becoming would be oligarchical(where corporate interests influence the state but don't outright become state enterprises). The US government rarely directly colludes with corporations(the Military-Industrial Complex is an example of when it does).

[Anonymous No.3150896]

>>3150866

Now you're just making up stories in your head. They're not coerced because they choose to work there. It's like saying someone has it shit because they work in a sweatshop. Of course they have it shit, but even those workers choose to work in those situations. Why?

Because as Joan Robinson said:
"the misery of not being exploited by capitalists is nothing compared to the misery of not being exploited at all."

If you want to see the standards of living progressively improve for those wage-slaves you not only need competition (so as to provide an even greater number of people with jobs), but more importantly, the ability for economic agents to choose their economic outcomes (coercion of workers AND companies are detrimental to this)

[Anonymous No.3150899]

>>3150878
People suffering is very profitable. Look at private healthcare in America for the past fifty years. Look at the Iraq war. Look at what happens when the government no longer has proper oversight of food and drug safety.

The reason why such horrible business practices were allowed to take place was due to a lack of proper oversight and accountability.

The reason why the government bailed them out was due to a political system which encourages politicians to play favorably with corporate power through campaign donations, lobbying, and ridiculous "consulting" jobs after they leave office.

[Anonymous No.3150902]

>>3150852
>implying anyone would let a communist revolution get off the ground
Not even 1% of the US population would be open to communism and don't say that it's just because "THEY'RE STOOPID!". Communism itself is a horrible economic ideology that has already destroyed Eastern Europe. Lets take the hint from those who have already experienced a communist regime and throw marxism back into the dust bin of history where it belongs.

[Anonymous No.3150906]

>>3150895
Yeah I mean I guess government bailouts of private companies technically doesn't count as collusion. However, the government grants special protections and rights to corporations which allows for what you see today.

Those companies should have been allowed to fail. Everyone would have been like BUT WHAT ABOUT THE WORKERS? OBAMA SAVED THE CAR INDUSTRY YAY!! but people don't realize that Smaller more efficient companies would have come in pretty quickly because the means of production, and the skilled workforce would still be there.

[Anonymous No.3150907]

>>3150899
the source of every problem you just listed is the state.

[Anonymous No.3150910]

>>3150906
That is a best case scenario.

The worst case scenario is one where the failed companies and banks lead to a horrible domino effect that topples the entire global economy.

Obama and of course Bush is center right, they chose to play it safe.

[Anonymous No.3150913]

>>3150907
In the presence of a stat it is the lack of oversight.

The government provides too many net positives to disband when the solution is so simple to fix.

[Anonymous No.3150917]

[Anonymous No.3150920]

>>3150913
so youre saying your solution to corporate interests corrupting government. . . is more government and oversight that is susceptible to corruption from corporations. How about limiting the government so you put corporations more at the mercy of the consumer.

[Anonymous No.3150925]

>>3150920
If you want to know, my solution would be to amend the Constitution so that corporations are no longer considered human beings and money is no longer considered speech.

[Anonymous No.3150926]

>>3150902
Capitalism itself is a horrible economic ideology that has already destroyed the entire third world. Lets take the hint from those who have already experienced a capitalist regime and throw capitalism back into the dust bin of history where it belongs.

[Anonymous No.3150928]

>>3150899
>private healthcare in America
Not really 'private' though, sport. They received heavy government subsidisation. The Government shrewdly controlled monopoly power by forcing every practising physician to work under a government license.

>Look at the Iraq war
Which private enterprise left alone by the government are you blaming for that?

>he reason why the government bailed them out was due to a political system which encourages politicians to play favorably with corporate power through campaign donations, lobbying, and ridiculous "consulting" jobs after they leave office.
And this is disgusting. The government should not have any interaction with private business.

[Anonymous No.3150931]

>>3150910
I would hardly call spending billions of taxpayer money that would otherwise be in the economy, setting dangerous precedents, and violating the rules and fairness of the free market, "playing it safe"

[Anonymous No.3150932]

>>3150926
Unfortunately, capitalists win wars so that will never happen.

[Anonymous No.3150934]

>>3150931
Then you are a hopeless ideologue.

[Anonymous No.3150935]

>>3150920
ideologues out

>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.3150937]

>>3150925
I don't think corporate personhood is in the constitution. I agree with getting rid of all government protection of business though, and less government involvement in the economy period.

[Anonymous No.3150939]

>>3150906
You quite clearly do not understand what happened in 2008, and what a gigantic mess the global economy was in. Bailout was the only solution to keep the whole thing going. It isn't all about skilled workforces or fixed capital.

[Anonymous No.3150946]

>>3150928
All military contractors got stinking rich during the Iraq war, their profits skyrocketed as did their stocks. It may have been hypocritical of me, but when we declared war on Iraq I made quite a bit of change investing in Halliburton.

[Anonymous No.3150952]

>>3150939
>You quite clearly do not understand what happened in 2008, and what a gigantic mess the global economy was in

You quite clearly do not understand what happened in 2008, why the global economy was in a gigantic mess, and how it could have easily been prevented.

[Anonymous No.3150953]

>>3150833
OH, I thought it said "that Cher". It "makes sense" with British dialect.

[Anonymous No.3150960]

>>3150937
I'm glad you agree with me but I wonder if you understand just how badly corporate personhood and money = freespeech fucked America over.

[Anonymous No.3150961]

>>3150946
none of which would have happened without the state starting the war. Its like a teacher giving a class of kindergartners a shitload of candy and then leaving the room. When the teacher comes back the classroom is completely destroyed. Whose to blame, the teacher or the children?

[Anonymous No.3150967]

>>3150961
>analogies
Also, your point might be true if corporate interests and political interests were not completely bedded. Unfortunately, that is not the case. The solutions are either get money out of politics or dissolve the state.

Which do you think is more realistic?

[Anonymous No.3150971]

>>3150917

this is why only marxism can provide a valuable critique of capitalism

[Anonymous No.3150972]

>>3150932

Capitalists can barely win wars against a rag-tag band of third-world fundamentalists. A communist revolution would undoubtedly overwhelm the bourgeois.

[Anonymous No.3150974]

>>3150967
obviously getting money out of politics. But if it were up to me i would do both.

[Anonymous No.3150977]

>>3150961

Capitalists are the ones who control the state. Stop pretending as if they are two completely unrelated institutions.

[Anonymous No.3150979]

i did some quick googling and this article came up

it's a pretty long interview but this is /lit/ and it seems interesting.

http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/05/01/int05004.html

[Anonymous No.3150981]

>>3150967

Neither are realistic is capitalism is allowed to exist. Only communism can fix these problems.

[Anonymous No.3150985]

>>3150974
Doing both would be an inefficient use of time and resources. How very uncapitalistic of you.

[Anonymous No.3150992]

>>3150952
Uh, not really. It had been in the making for a long time. Over-leveraging is a natural consequence of the current financial system.

[Anonymous No.3151010]

>>3150971

Marxism cannot provide a valuable solution to capitalism because it ignores the informational requirements required in capitalistic decision making. Not only that, but they ignore the importance prices play in the decision making of individuals.

Marxism may have a point from a sociological standpoint, but they make no sense whatsoever from an economic standpoint.

[Anonymous No.3151014]

>>3151010

Actually it is capitalism which makes no sense from an economic standpoint. Only in capitalism could you have both a surplus of houses and a large homeless population, for example.

[Anonymous No.3151015]

>>3150977

As a pro-capitalist I find the control of the state by the capitalist just as abhorrent as the control of the state by the workers. It becomes a problem not about the abuse of power by the state, but the power to abuse; the state should have no right to pick winners and losers.

[Anonymous No.3151021]

>>3151015

Capitalism is also the power to abuse. Why do you think capitalists find it so necessary to enclose the commons, fund wars of imperialism, violently break up unions and so on. It's all about maximizing the appropriation of the worker's surplus capital.

[Anonymous No.3151027]

>>3151014

What kind of fucking example is that? You ignore all the causal factors that contribute to the large homeless population, which by the way needs not be linked to the surplus of houses. Capitalism has a solution for a surplus of houses, and that is a drop in prices.

[Anonymous No.3151033]

>>3151027

These 'casual' factors are indeed maintained by the capitalist. The capitalist needs a large surplus of workers who are hungry and desperate, in order to keep wages down and to smoothly transition whenever the capitalist needs to hire.

Again, only in capitalism could a surplus of goods be considered a problem. In any sensible economy you would simply say 'Ah ok, well now we have a few leftovers for potential hardtimes, and we'll make sure not to overproduce in future'

[Anonymous No.3151034]

>>3151027
The housing prices did drop which fucked everyone in America over since a majority of their wealth is tied into their houses.

Falling house prices creates even more homeless.

[Anonymous No.3151038]

>>3151027

lol how dumb are you. do you pay attention to the world at all?

[Anonymous No.3151046]

>>3151027

dduuurrrr lots of homeless people. ddduuurrr lots of empty houses... lets not link these two things *drool all over self*

[Anonymous No.3151070]

Honestly, I can't believe there's so many of you that accept Marx's nonsensical ideas. You've honestly got hundreds of intellectuals that have masterfully repudiated his ideas over the past 150 years.

Even the Austrians, who themselves can be wrong on some pretty obvious things, proved him wrong. Honestly people, read some Böhm-Bawerk, and work on the Socialist Calculation Debates, you might come out lucid by the end of it.

[Anonymous No.3151075]

>>3151070

People are turning to Marx because its only his critique which explains the situation capitalism finds itself in today.

[Anonymous No.3151079]

>>3151075

Or maybe they just want to find something that supports their very narrow world view.

[Anonymous No.3151085]

>>3151079

I used to be liberal until I read Marx, Lenin, et al. Capitalist economics always handwaves away 'externalities'. Only a marxist analysis looks at the state and capitalism as two fundamentally linked institutions.

[Anonymous No.3151094]

>>3151079

Doubtful. The ongoing economic crisis has really opened a lot of peoples eyes.

[Anonymous No.3151095]

>>3151085

same. It's one thing to be a liberal out of apathy, but to be ideologically committed to liberalism is indefensible, in my opinion.

[Anonymous No.3151100]

>>3151085

...and I used to be a communist before I became a liberal. Capitalist economics does not handwave away externalities, you obviously haven't read any Coase (or the shit tonne of works that stem from it).

[Anonymous No.3151106]

>>3151095

How is it indefensible?

[Anonymous No.3151108]

>>3151100

That 'externalities' exist at all is actually an indication of the impotence of liberal economics. Clearly not scientific at all.

[Anonymous No.3151109]

>>3151106
It's practical.

[Anonymous No.3151119]

>>3151109

The idea that the capitalist consensus is sustainable is a very utopian and totally IMPRACTICAL, imo.

[Anonymous No.3151133]

>>3151119
It is very practical.

I agree it is not sustainable, though. In that way I suppose it isn't practical.

It's been working alright for now, though.

[Anonymous No.3151152]

>>3151133

what do you mean by practical, then, if its going to fucking collapse soon and plunge the entire world into catastrophe....? what's so practical about that?

and sure, it's worked out for some nations but, uh, ever try asking the third world about how 'practical' liberalism has been for them. You know, the peoples' whose backs we're living off of.

[Anonymous No.3151153]

>>3151133

>It's been working alright for now, though

lolwuuuttttttt

[Anonymous No.3151156]

>>3151133

lol

[Anonymous No.3151158]

>>3151152
>>3151153
The problem is that the system has been gamed. Capitalism was working phenomenally up until the early to mid seventies with mostly domestic production and consumption of goods.

History is pretty important if you wish to form a coherent argument.

I say it isn't sustainable largely because of our rate of consumption of non-sustainable goods and our reliance on them. If we want to effectively curb their depletion we can't rely on any free market model.

[PlatformistFag !!JuB1MCnwvsO No.3151160]

>Dependence on technology is making us functionally illiterate.

Why didn't we listen?

[PlatformistFag !!JuB1MCnwvsO No.3151164]

>Dependence on technology is making us functionally illiterate.

Why didn't we listen?

[Anonymous No.3151166]

>>3151158
If it wasn't clear, I was referring to the United States.

[PlatformistFag !!JuB1MCnwvsO No.3151174]

>>3151070
Bohm-Bawerk was wrong about pretty much everything. The Austrian critiques of Marxism have all been thoroughly refuted. Go read Hilferding and Bukharin if you want more on that.

Mises based his arguments regarding the econ. calc. problem on several false assumptions, one of which was that prices accurately reflect cost.

http://www.infoshop.org/AnarchistFAQSectionI1#seci12

People who take the Austrians seriously in this day and age themselves don't deserve to be taken seriously.

[Anonymous No.3151183]

>>3151158

lol . . . yeah guys, capitalism's fine . . . it's just this . . . other stuff, nothing to do with it inherently, like . . . it's not like people ever made accurate critiques of it before the 70s...

[Anonymous No.3151193]

>>3151183
It was already mentioned in this thread, I believe.

In the seventies, it was ruled that money is equal to speech and therefore is above accountability. If you combine that with corporate personhood you have a disaster of a political system.

Unlimited campaign contributions by corporate entities with no transparency does not lead to a very fair implementation of capitalism.

[Anonymous No.3151197]

>>3151193

there is no 'fair' implementation of capitalism. capitalism is about profit, and as certain people profit they will remove any barriers that get in the way of their power. which means increasing deregulation.

[Anonymous No.3151199]

>>3151193

>fair implementation of capitalism

my sides!

[Anonymous No.3151200]

>>3151199
No reason to hide behind me mes. If you disagree, explain why.

[Anonymous No.3151203]

>>3151193

. . . yeah, because before then things were fucking peachy . . . it's not, like, people were writing books called The Jungle before the 70s . . .

[Anonymous No.3151206]

>>3151200

"you know, guys, I don't see what's so inherently bad about rape."

"my sides!"

"No reason to hide behind me mes. If you disagree, explain why."

[Anonymous No.3151208]

>>3151203
That was due to a lack of regulations/oversight. If you haven't noticed, I am arguing for liberal capitalism. The Jungle supports my ideology, not detract from it.

[Anonymous No.3151210]

>>3151206
>analogies
You really are rhetorically bankrupt.

[Anonymous No.3151212]

>>3151200
get behind mes, he'll protec tus

[Anonymous No.3151216]

>>3151208

...are you fucking joking? is Europe today not the PERFECT example of why liberal capitalism is an utter failure?

and why does nobody address the brutal exploitation of the third world? you think its an accident that the west is eating themselves to death while africa is starving?

[Anonymous No.3151225]

>>3151216
European capitalism is not an utter failure and besides, I never brought that up.

I am talking about the United States.

If you want to discuss contemporary European implementation of capitalism, or its most recent economic crash, then you cannot address it without acknowledging the effects of globalization. That is why I didn't bring it up, it is a very complicated case study.

The United States basically dictates the entire global economic environment, these days no state's economy can be viewed in vacuum reliably.

[Anonymous No.3151389]

>>3150728
Sir, you're a genius.

[Anonymous No.3151416]

>>3150685
>http://www.isthatcherdeadyet.co.uk/
soon

[Anonymous No.3151432]

>>3150668
this isn't america your memes dont apply

[Anonymous No.3151499]

There is nothing morally wrong with fascism for children. Currently kids have to much freedom. Drug use of ecstasy in the UK is crazy high, and many kids to it every weakened preeminently damaging their brain at a young age.

[Anonymous No.3151517]

UK schools need more diversity

[Anonymous No.3151532]

>>3151499

Err that was 20 years ago....what year are you in?

[Anonymous No.3151535]

>>3150753
>this is mad fookin' mental mate, climbin' trees and that

Lel. Brits, you should force your working class to return to their ways of old. They used to be pretty cool guys.

[Anonymous No.3151551]

>>3151499
>2012
>not the year of new conservatism and careerism amoung the young

[Anonymous No.3151572]

>>3150561
>Who do you think is to blame, /lit/?

inbreeding

[Anonymous No.3151582]

>>3150561
What race is that middle one?

[Anonymous No.3151623]

>tfw can read
i dun lurned good momma

[Anonymous No.3151626]

The learned will always be fewer in number than the un-.

This isn't news

[Anonymous No.3151628]

>>3151535
i liked that movie.

>tfw the negro gets beat up
>manly tears

[Anonymous No.3151753]

Tories.

[Anonymous No.3151775]

Blame Labour for low teaching standards

[Anonymous No.3151785]

>>3151535
National front are not as working class as you might think. They certainly were never your typical working class political movement.

[Anonymous No.3151789]

>>3150605
I was from a council estate, and I did better than people not from council estates. It's you lazy middle class kiddies that have a lot to answer for.

[Anonymous No.3151790]

>>3151628

>negro

you must be Australian or something.

[Anonymous No.3151794]

>>3151753
>>3151775

>Blame tories
>Blame labour
>Don't blame increasingly facile and frivolous society
>Assume the poor haven't always been bad at reading
>Ignore that capitalism needs a social hegemony to operate because "we can't all be doctors"
>Wonder why no one really works to fix the problem.

[Anonymous No.3151795]

>>3150561
blame hip hop and pop music

[Anonymous No.3151804]

>>3150561
America. I blame America.
Don't pretend. You know you do too.

[Anonymous No.3151810]

>>3151790
and you must be new here

[Anonymous No.3151823]

>>3150561

>Who do you think is to blame, /lit/?

The kids? You live in the first world, have access to education and relatively easy living, and don't choose to use an advantage that you have over millions of other destitute and impoverished kids in other parts of the world?

They have the unique opportunity to raise their station in life and they don't want to. Their choice, their problem.

[Anonymous No.3151834]

>>3151823
Yurp. This. Those who don't help themselves don't deserve to be helped. It's actually appalling; they have the means to a better life, but they don't take it - perhaps out of either fear of ostracism or pure laziness.

[Anonymous No.3151854]

>>3151823
>>3151834

hahaohwow you two are unbelievable cunts.

[Anonymous No.3151856]

>>3151854
Go watch that BBC documentary about foster care, and then come back.

[Anonymous No.3151859]

>>3151856
The kid has a comfortable life in a big house, but he just fucking throws it back in his mom's face and sells all the shit she gave him for weed. That's gratitude, that is. She ends up disowning him.

[Anonymous No.3151865]

>>3151854

Why? For thinking personal onus is important?

There are institutional problems, yes, but in the end these kids have the means to improve their situation and they choose not to. And I'm the cunt? OK.

[Anonymous No.3151884]

>>3150561

Honestly OP, I blame you.

[Anonymous No.3151892]

>>3151865
It's not the kids, you fuckwit. Behavioural patters are established so early, that the parental role in encouraging learning is far more significant.

You can't take a rich upper middle class kid, who has had thousands invested in his education, parents who actively encourage him, and compare him to a working class kid whose parents couldn't give a fuck about education. At 5 years old the child can't be blamed, you can attempt to blame them when they hit teens, but by then it's usually too late.

[Anonymous No.3151895]

>>3151823

Implying Kids aren't inherently hedonistic swines. In the era of mass-consumable technology they need external discipline because no child (16 and below) has a good understanding of the world, and primarily the future, at that age and they never have.

Who's to blame? Capitalism.
Who could circumvent the problem? Parents.
Who doesn't want to take responsibility for their actions? Everyone (especially parents).

[Anonymous No.3151899]

>>3151895
>Who's to blame? Capitalism.
0/10

[Anonymous No.3151900]

>>3151892
We're talking about teenage kids. The main affront is that many reject help and then complain when they're stuck in a rut.

[Anonymous No.3151901]

>>3151895

[Anonymous No.3151905]

>>3151900
The same applies to adults.

[Anonymous No.3151906]

>>3151900
>We're talking about teenage kids.

It doesn't matter what age group you decile to isolate and examine. You have to look at WHY the teens are like that, and this will invariably stem from childhood causes.

[Anonymous No.3151908]

>>3151899
How's that increasing socio-political inequality treating you?

[Anonymous No.3151909]

>>3151906
Of course. However, if someone screams for help; receives it, and then claims that no one is helping them, wouldn't you feel that it wasn't worth it? I'm not saying everyone does this, but many do.

[Anonymous No.3151915]

>>3151899

At least indirectly.

[Anonymous No.3151916]

>>3151908
Hows that desire to cripple the strong so they kneel with the weak treating you?

[Anonymous No.3151921]

>>3151892

>There are institutional problems, yes

I never said parental support wasn't important. Some people get dealt shitty hands in life and they get bad parents, it sucks and it isn't fair.

But either they can apply themselves and transcend that through hard work or they can all choose resignation. It's their choice. You think previous generations had it any easier? Please.

>unbelievable cunts
>you fuckwit

Nice to know personal onus is such a point of outrage for you. Reality is a tough pill to swallow for some.

[Anonymous No.3151924]

>>3151909
The young 5 year old who grows up in appalling conditions isn't going to ask for help, who's he going to turn too, parents? He is fucked from the start. Yes, he's going to reject schooling when he gets older, but it was a firm path that he couldn't deviate from.

There are a lot of reasons why the parents are like this. But mainly it's an endless cycle; the 5 year old growing up and doing the same to his kids. It's a socialist education system and a socialist welfare state that maintains this class struggle. We need to stop government interference and put it back in the hands of private enterprise.

[Anonymous No.3151928]

>>3151924
There should probably be some regulation as to who's allowed to have kids. Some sort of exam or pre-conceptive classes.

[Anonymous No.3151930]

>>3151916
>Hows
Good, thanks! :DDDDD

[Anonymous No.3151934]

>>3151930
I love it when an argument can't be rebuked, so the other party pretends that a missing comma or apostrophe magically invalidates it. It gives me a really warm feeling.

[Anonymous No.3151937]

>>3151934
>Started the 'argument'.
>Never gave a rebuttal to begin with.
>Is asspained that he made a childish mistake in his writing, and is projecting his inability to argue or think rationally on others.
>sages

You're the hero >>>/pol/ deserves. Return to them.

[Anonymous No.3151939]

>>3151921

>I never said parental support wasn't important. Some people get dealt shitty hands in life and they get bad parents, it sucks and it isn't fair.
>But either they can apply themselves and transcend that through hard work or they can all choose resignation. It's their choice. You think previous generations had it any easier? Please.

I do agree with this in theory but I feel you're being a bit too idealistic. When are you supposing that a child comes to a realisation about the world in order to take such a mindset?

The most overlooked thing in this thread is how god damn naive children are by nature. A lot of people are treating them as if they are bona fide adults and expect them to have the same ability to think ahead as they do (which is quite absurd coming from what I assume are mostly humanities/arts students).

Previous generations aren't necessary to compare.

[Anonymous No.3151971]

>>3151939

>I do agree with this in theory but I feel you're being a bit too idealistic.

I will concede that I am in part, yes, but it is a point that has its place in this discussion.

There are victims of circumstance and class struggle that find themselves estranged from means or interest in education from a young age, I'm not discounting that, but if you don't want to help yourself then other forms of help will remain ineffectual.

Though I feel I am expecting a level of foresight and maturity that is unfair from people so young, they are only kids. Still, a drive to change needs to be there for any help to work at all.

Considering how disillusioning these kids lives can seem to them it's a cruel catch-22, but a fact of life all the same.

[Anonymous No.3152105]

>>3150890
>how would any company make money if everyone was a wage slave? It's in any companies best interest to have a wealthy, healthy population.

It's in the interest of *some* companies to have a healthy, wealthy population. Corporations like McDonald's ad walmart profit just fine off of the lower classes; in fact a significant percentage of companies operating nowadays are geared towards lower income consumers.

But this is all moot anyhow since no company has direct control over the salary of employees at another.

[Anonymous No.3152118]

>>3152105
>But this is all moot anyhow since no company has direct control over the salary of employees at another.

No, but any educated employer would realise that the more money in the consumers hands, the more products are being purchased. An enforced minimum wage has allowed companies like McJobs to thrive, whereas if it was taken away a flourishing job market would result, with employees able to pick from a wider selection and climb far more ladders.

[Anonymous No.3152154]

>>3152118
>An enforced minimum wage has allowed companies like McJobs to thrive, whereas if it was taken away a flourishing job market would result

Removing the minimum wage would be disastrous. Nobody would be employed and the system would collapse.

[Anonymous No.3152166]

>>3152154
You, sir, are under the illusion, often pushed by trade unions (which I'm not necessarily opposing), that the minimum wage will help poor people who need the money. In reality this couldn't be further from the truth. What you are doing is ensuring people with insufficient skills to justify receiving an enforced minimum wage are left unemployed.

The min wage came into effect in US during the 1950s (and was EU enforced in Europe too) instantly creating a record unemployment level, which it has not only successfully maintained, but has been increasing ever since.

Yes, the poor are given a guaranteed wage, but the numbers of unemployed will rise much higher than you can justifiably accept. A lot more people start receiving benefits from the state, which raises taxes in a negative feedback loop that is devastating to the companies paying employees in the first place.

Minimum wage = discrimination against the unskilled.

[Anonymous No.3152181]

>>3152166
literally no one has skills so insufficient that they deserve less than minimum wage

[Anonymous No.3152193]

>>3152181
>literally no one has skills so insufficient that they deserve less than minimum wage
See:
>>3150740
>>3150711
>>3150684
>>3150679
>>3150670
The min wage in the UK is £6.19($9.80) for adults. Employers wont take them on for the same wage when there are many people with higher skill levels.

[Anonymous No.3152217]

>>3150753
Devvo is a joke

[Anonymous No.3152395]

>>3150561
well i happened to talk to a British teacher last summer, and he said that during every exam they would write down an abbreviation or a short version (see: lol, brb) of a sentence or a word. he mostly blamed the internet for this

[Anonymous No.3153313]

>>3152166
>but the numbers of unemployed will rise much higher than you can justifiably accept.

A portion of the population working at sub-min wage, just to have lower unemployment levels makes no sense. If your skills are really only worth $4 hourly, then you're probably working in such a pointless job that it doesn't warrant existence in the first place.

[Anonymous No.3153323]

>>3153313
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ca8Z__o52sk

[Anonymous No.3153347]

>>3153323
He doesn't even know what the minimum wage is. He then proceeds to imply that black people are less skilled. Can you be more elitist than that?

[Anonymous No.3153366]

>>3153347
>He then proceeds to imply that black people are less skilled. Can you be more elitist than that?
You're ignoring his point because you don't like him.

[Anonymous No.3153375]

>>3153347
>He then proceeds to imply that black people are less skilled. Can you be more elitist than that?

But blacks are generally less skilled, that's just a fact. Especially back when this interview was conducted.

[Anonymous No.3153379]

>>3153366
His point is moot the moment he proposes that economic agents have the same degree of economical freedom.

[Anonymous No.3153396]

American student here. Our writing course switched to this thing where we now submit most of our assignments through the internet.

Some kids in the class are accidentally posting their assignments publicly. Here's one from when the assignment was 'Define any ten words from anything you read.'

[Anonymous No.3153407]

>>3153396

lol I like how he does a slightly different variation for each one

also, at first I was all "what does this have to do with the topic...?"

then i remembered what it was orignaly abouuuut!!!!

[Anonymous No.3153408]

>>3153379
Your point is moot the moment you neglected to realize we all don't have the same degree of value.

[Anonymous No.3153413]

American student here. Our writing course switched to this thing where we now submit most of our assignments through the internet.

Some kids in the class are accidentally posting their assignments publicly. Here's one from when the assignment was 'Define any ten words from anything you read.

I'm seriously not trolling. There are more that I will dump

[Anonymous No.3153412]

>>3153396

5/5 bretty good :DDD

[Anonymous No.3153415]

>>3153413

[Anonymous No.3153422]

>>3153415
One of them still did it right.

[Anonymous No.3153425]

>>3153413
>>3153415
I don't think this is unusual. I sure as hell didn't know what Euphony was until now.

[Anonymous No.3153428]

>>3153413
What grade?

[Anonymous No.3153432]

>>3153425

You don't get it... the funny part is that they're supposed to use each word in a sentence, but some of them are lazy fuck-ups and make every sentence something like "lol i lernt dis word in Wetherling Hites", completely missing the point of the assignment.

[Anonymous No.3153446]

>>3153413
>>3153415
I thought there were more but there were only two.
either way the same person is also responsible for this. The point is that it's in an AP Lit class

[Anonymous No.3153448]

>>3153446
>alabama

15000/10

[Anonymous No.3153458]

>>3153446
>The point is that it's in an AP Lit class

Oh dear. We really need to disabuse ourselves of the notion that everyone deserves the same education and start "tracking" students from an earlier age, I think.

[Anonymous No.3153475]

>Who do you think is to blame, /lit/?
Hmm... I wonder.

[Anonymous No.3153499]

>>3151921
>You think previous generations had it any easier?

Of course not, but part of the whole point of 'progression' is that things should improve.

[Anonymous No.3153517]

>>3150561
I don't have a problem with this. I just look better in comparison.

> tfw a girl refers to you as the cute brainy guy

[Anonymous No.3153521]

>>3153475
>>>/pol/
>>>/b/
>>>/anywhere else/

[Anonymous No.3153526]

[Anonymous No.3153527]

>>3153323
I don't understand your intent with posting this. Me and Friedman essentially arrive at the same conclusion, except that I see this as a good thing since it further incentivizes the acquisition of skills.

[Anonymous No.3153538]

As other people have said, it's high expectations. Fifty years ago most people in Britain were functionally illiterate; it's not going to change now we've given children from idiotic parents free education. To be fair, if you look at any country you'll find these statistics.

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

>UK: 21.8%
>US: 20%
>Germany: 14.4%
>Italy: 47%

That's right. Half of Italians can't even read the back of a milk bottle properly.

[Anonymous No.3153544]

>>3153527
> it further incentivizes the acquisition of skills

If there was no minimum wage, employers could hire people and train them on the job. There's a reason this kind of thing is largely dead nowadays.

[Anonymous No.3153590]

>>3153521

[Anonymous No.3154437]

>>3153544
>If there was no minimum wage, employers could hire people and train them on the job. There's a reason this kind of thing is largely dead nowadays.

On the job training is dead because employers are lazy, it's not just a financial issue. Minimum wage is not a major issue for on the job training unless the "experienced" person in that position would only be earning min. wage as well.

Also internships get around that.

[Anonymous No.3154487]

>>3154437
>On the job training is dead because employers are lazy, it's not just a financial issue.
It's not dead. All employers have to make sure someone is trained in health and safety, frequently send employees on training courses, and usually perform some form of basic training when people start the job anyway.

>Minimum wage is not a major issue for on the job training unless the "experienced" person in that position would only be earning min. wage as well.
The issue is most menial jobs, from panel beaters to assembly line workers, want experienced people. Just take a look at the job centre website, or the ads in your local newspaper. They're either jobs which require qualifications, or jobs that want experience. Very occasionally you get "leaflet deliver - no experience necessary," but the point is the unskilled workers are kept out of work because of the wage employers are forced to give.

Modern government is a total joke. Everything from minimum wage to rising socialism is crippling the economy.

[Anonymous No.3154561]

>>3154487
I too noticed this. There's never a real way to get into the workplace because they all demand experience. How are the young supposed to find their footing if they're never given a chance to stand? To hell with it all.

[Anonymous No.3154568]

>>3154561
>How are the young supposed to find their footing if they're never given a chance to stand.
Education. Take out one of the start up business loans that the government has put aside millions for. Start an apprenticeship that lets you take half wages until you have experience.

[Anonymous No.3154580]

>>3154568
>Education.
Enter into the socialist system that is responsible for this mess in the first place.

>Take out one of the start up business loans that the government has put aside millions for.
Great. Use tax money for a company that is statistically likely to fail.

>Start an apprenticeship that lets you take half wages until you have experience.
The government pays employers to take apprentices. All three options actually worsen the system in the long term, and perpetuate socialist structures that worsen the economy.

[Anonymous No.3154585]

Pt.2
>>3154568
>>3154580
Socialism is not the answer. Look, consider my example:
Waste management in the UK is owned by the government under a socialist scheme. People are taxed, waste is collected, dumped in landfill sites, millions of pounds are wasted. If the capitalists had a monopoly here, they would compete with rival waste companies. They would need to find ways of recycling all metal and plastic, turning all food waste into compost, and compress all household waste into solid commercially usable material to generate more revenue. The capitalists would compete enough so that the money they make from the resale of waste is high enough to pay their wages, and could even then collect the waste for free(as people who pay for the service favour the lowest price). They employ more people, make things more efficient, generate more money, come up with improved services, and reduce the taxes you pay on waste to zero.

Under socialism, the government owns everything, has no incentives to improve, endless bureaucracy, no healthy competition, wastes millions, and carries on heavily taxing people. This is the same in every socialist area the government control.

[Anonymous No.3154793]

>>3150663
>>3150670
>>3150674
>>3150679
Jesus Christ, is this what people actually look like in Britain?

[Anonymous No.3154797]

>>3154585
>the free market will magic costs away! There aren't areas capitalists wouldn't touch with a bargepole!
>profit? What's that?

[Anonymous No.3154832]

>>3154797
>the free market will magic costs away! There aren't areas capitalists wouldn't touch with a bargepole!
>profit? What's that?
I hope you are kidding. There are capitalists making a healthy profit from collecting garbage in the UK already, despite the governments efforts to destroy the whole area with socialist scheming. They even collect items the council wont touch. Unfortunately, the government are refusing tax reimbursement for the people using private services, and are content to steal the money, but that still doesn't prevent them. Despite everything, the companies are managing to charge a small fee and recycle enough (substantially more than the government) to generate a decent profit. If more people started using the service then obviously the price would decrease due to bulk recycling, and the projected profit and loss statements say that if the entire waste service was given back to the entrepreneurs, there would be enough revenue from recycling to not only make the process free, but reduce un-recycled waste to almost zero. Keep in mind that London boroughs lose over £1m a year due to the government being in charge of waste management.

[Anonymous No.3154870]

>>3154832
That's pretty shitty that you have to pay the council if you pay someone else.

[Anonymous No.3154881]

>>3154585
>>3154832
So much words wasted on empty ideological vomit.

[Anonymous No.3154883]

>>3154585
>They would need to find ways of recycling
They would keep dumping it in the ocean, that's all. If the government got large planes and started dumping all the waste in the ocean, there would be protests. When corporations destroy water sources, people say they have an obligation to shareholders to keep costs down.

[Anonymous No.3154888]

>>3154870
Welcome to Government.

>>3154881
I appreciate the well constructed rebuttal, unfortunately the facts don't side with you on this issue.

[Anonymous No.3154894]

>>3154793
Not everywhere but sadly yes. There are lots of these people around. There are going to be huge issues in the future and the riots from the summer before last are indicators of this.

[Anonymous No.3154902]

>>3154888
You just strung together a bunch of buzz phrases and stock political rhetoric to rephrase the basic statement of "the free market will fix it!" without any further depth or explanation.

No, Mr. Libertarian autist, the free market will not magically fix it. You can throw out more slogans in the style of "competition!" and "evil big government messes up everything as per this anecdote I heard from other Libertarian ideologues" but it won't amount to anything but more pseudo-intellectualism and dead weight.

[Anonymous No.3154903]

>>3154832
They charge £10 a collection. They're also receiving government funding. As will every waste collection service from now and into perpetuity. The idea that waste collection will become magically free because PRIVATE SECTOR GUYS! is unfounded and ill-reasoned.

[Anonymous No.3154909]

>>3154883
>They would keep dumping it in the ocean, that's all
Its sewage that gets dumped in the ocean. Most UK household waste goes to landfill, some gets recycled, and a very small percentage gets burned.

>If the government got large planes and started dumping all the waste in the ocean, there would be protests.
Of course there would, but that would affect many other industries too, and the price of flying it out over the Atlantic wouldn't be any more economic than driving it to a hole to bury.

>When corporations destroy water sources, people say they have an obligation to shareholders to keep costs down.
Which companies are you referring to?

When I said "They would need to find ways of recycling" I meant private companies. The government recycles around 25-38% depending on the region, whereas private companies are at about 65-70%. Recycled material like glass, metal, plastic, paper, some foodstuffs can be sold on for profit, so it's in the companies best interest to do that instead of dumping it. If the private sector had an active monopoly they could get the recyclables over 96% with increased revenue for recycling facilities.

[Anonymous No.3154923]

>>3154909
>Which companies are you referring to?
Here's one:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/oct/10/marks-spencer-pollution-textile

[Anonymous No.3154925]

>>3154902
>>3154903
That's where you are wrong, Mr. Socialist. Under your wonderful scheme The UK will be in debt for £1.5 trillion by 2016, and will soar even higher if more industries are seized by the Government. Currently the government owes £17,154 for each person in the UK. If business were given back to the people this wouldn't go away immediately, but it would start to decline straight away. Taxation could be stripped back to less than 10% and people could start to prosper again.

In our waste example, are you surprised that it costs £10? They have very few customers because the government charges them already, people are reluctant to pay twice. And no, the government doesn't reimburse the tax money back to most waste companies.

[Anonymous No.3154934]

>>3154923
That is horrible. Unfortunately, even if it is a UK company, it is happening in Communist China. I agree that the issue should be fixed, but there isn't a lot the UK can do unless they agree with the Chinese government to extradite and prosecute the offenders.

[Anonymous No.3157757]

>>3154793
Yes.