On Mon, 24 Oct 2022 04:46:28 +1100, R Souls <ron.souls@aol.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 24 Oct 2022 03:29:26 +1100, "Rod Speed"
> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 24 Oct 2022 02:44:05 +1100, R Souls <ron.souls@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 23 Oct 2022 14:39:37 GMT, "Jeff Gaines"
>>> <jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 23/10/2022 in message <38ealhp6l0s2010b96jql09rupnl1fgj4h@4ax.com>
>>>> R
>>>> Souls wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>> When has that ever happened except in the depths of socialist
>>>>>>>> dogma?
>>>>>>> Now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You'll have to explain.
>>>>> Really?
>>>>
>>>> Yes, let's have some examples.
>>>
>>> Christ! Are you really that thick?
>>>
>>> Now is the perfect example. The archaic FPTP system has saddled us
>>> with an utterly inept government filled with one-trick-pony brexiters
>>> with no prospect of removing it for another two years.
>>
>> Nothing to do with FPTP
> Bullshit
>>
>>> If they had any
>>> moral fibre at all they would allow a general election,
>>
>> Nothing to do with FPTP
> Bullshit
>>
>>> but that'll
>>> never happen. This foul group of Nasties cares nothing about wrecking
>>> our country, their only consideration being to keep their jobs.
>>
>> Nothing to do with FPTP
> Bullshit
>
> With PR the Nasties wouldn't have had such a majority because
> everyone's vote would have counted.

That clearly doesnt stop the tiny partys in Israel, Italy, Belgium
etc causing even more chaos than assassinating Boris did.

>>> The rest of the world sees us as a laughing stock and again that will
>>> only get worse until this vile collection of yobbos is removed.
>>
>> To be replaced by Labour who will fuck things up even more
>> comprehensively
>> by nationalising what makes no sense to nationalise.
>
> Bullshit

Wota stunning line in rational argument you have there, child.

On 23/10/2022 13:49, Jeff Gaines wrote:
> On 23/10/2022 in message <jrklauFeu18U1@mid.individual.net> S Viemeister
> wrote:
>
>>> I would prefer the Single Transferable Vote system any day.
>>>
>> As would I.
>> But many people seem to find it difficult to understand.
>
> Perhaps because nobody can give a simple explanation?
>
> Pure PR is simple. Each party gets the same percentage of seats as the
> percentage of votes cast for it.
>
> Can you explain STV that simply?
>
Mark 1 against your favourite candidate, 2 against your second
favourite, and so on.

That's all the voter needs.

The problem is of course that the people who set the voting system are
the ones who got into power on the existing system. So they don't want
it changed.

And every single one of them thinks they know how to run the country
better than the other 60 million people. That's megalomania in my book,
and it's a job requirement.

I want a benign dictatorship. Someone in charge who does everything for
the benefit of the people. It only has one flaw... keeping it benign :)

Andy

On 23/10/2022 12:12, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 23/10/2022 08:18, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> In message <tj1fnt$vpid$1@dont-email.me>, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> writes
>>> On 22/10/2022 20:00, SteveW wrote:
>>>> On 22/10/2022 10:05, Brian Gaff wrote:
>>>>> I'd go for proportional representation. It would be rocky to start
>>>>> with, but
>>>>> we have to get them to realise there is no one true way, and
>>>>> pragmatism is
>>>>> the way forward. Whatever part of an electorate you alienate will
>>>>> not co
>>>>> operate and  you will lose  control. The way it is at the moment
>>>>> the next
>>>>> election will have the lowest turn out in history, if you want
>>>>> democracy to
>>>>> be real, you have to make people feel at least they are listened
>>>>> to. At the
>>>>> moment there is a vacuum while all the people supposedly at the top
>>>>> have
>>>>> never tried their policies in a real world setting as a small
>>>>> insignificant
>>>>> country. They still think we are the old imperial power.
>>>>>   Brian
>>>>  Although PR can mean large parties who need a small party to
>>>> support them having to agree to fringe policies that most of the
>>>> country do not  want, to get their own policies through.
>>>
>>> Quite, that is my take of PR. Where some small extreme party has a
>>> disproportionate control.
>>>
>> But is this necessarily much worse than the present FPPT system, where
>> possibly on a manifesto of false and optimistic promises, and even
>> some downright lies, the winning party can achieve a majority large
>> enough to ensure them an unaccountable five years of total and
>> absolute power?
>
> What I would like to see, is that taxes are replaced by a giant web
> site, where you donate your hard earned cash to whatever cause you like
> - the NHS, the miltary, Schools and Universities etc etc. Or Dog Rescue.
> our choice.
>
>
> I don't think much would go to a bunch of bankers and civil servants
> destroying the ability of the government to govern. Not that the
> government of Western Europe has shown any ability to govern in the
> first place...

But none of the taxes go to the bankers. They do however PAY a lot of tax.

On 23/10/2022 21:44, Vir Campestris wrote:

> Mark 1 against your favourite candidate, 2 against your second
> favourite, and so on.
>
> That's all the voter needs.
>
> The problem is of course that the people who set the voting system are
> the ones who got into power on the existing system. So they don't want
> it changed.
>
+1.

> And every single one of them thinks they know how to run the country
> better than the other 60 million people. That's megalomania in my book,
> and it's a job requirement.
>
Oh dear, I didn't expect such naiveté.
They don't think they can run the country at all, They have plebs for
that. And a civil service and banking class and the BBC.

Being in government is about privilege and personal gain. and back
handers and generalised corruption.

Running the country simply doesn't come into it

> I want a benign dictatorship. Someone in charge who does everything for
> the benefit of the people. It only has one flaw... keeping it benign :)
>
> Andy
>

Exactly. Like all idealistic notions of governance it fails at the first
contact with the reality of human nature.

What worries me most is that it is fairly clear that such changes as
happened to crack the feudal system were on account of the Lords
actually needing peasants to run the farms, and without them, the Lords
had no income.
Post Middle Ages, the peasants were still needed, but the rise of the
artisans - those who were in essence engineers - and the rise of
international traders and the banking system, meant that landed gentry
had to defer to the wishes at least of some of the middle classes.
Today, you don't need most of those people at all. Robots and computers
do all the work.
The old peasant class are shoved into sink estates to live on benefits
smoke crack and absorb daytime TV and no one notices their absence.
The middle classes of artisans are rendered powerless by the simple
expedient of outsourcing manufacturing. Small traders and the
bourgeoisie are rendered bankrupt by online trading, and all we have
left are wankers and bankers. The only people with jobs at all are make
work apparatchiks in government or other government funded sectors like
the BBC.

Its ideal for an elite that likes to piss on peasants, but is it
sustainable?

--
“The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the
urge to rule it.”
– H. L. Mencken

On 23/10/2022 23:38, SteveW wrote:
> On 23/10/2022 12:12, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 23/10/2022 08:18, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>> In message <tj1fnt$vpid$1@dont-email.me>, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> writes
>>>> On 22/10/2022 20:00, SteveW wrote:
>>>>> On 22/10/2022 10:05, Brian Gaff wrote:
>>>>>> I'd go for proportional representation. It would be rocky to start
>>>>>> with, but
>>>>>> we have to get them to realise there is no one true way, and
>>>>>> pragmatism is
>>>>>> the way forward. Whatever part of an electorate you alienate will
>>>>>> not co
>>>>>> operate and  you will lose  control. The way it is at the moment
>>>>>> the next
>>>>>> election will have the lowest turn out in history, if you want
>>>>>> democracy to
>>>>>> be real, you have to make people feel at least they are listened
>>>>>> to. At the
>>>>>> moment there is a vacuum while all the people supposedly at the
>>>>>> top have
>>>>>> never tried their policies in a real world setting as a small
>>>>>> insignificant
>>>>>> country. They still think we are the old imperial power.
>>>>>>   Brian
>>>>>  Although PR can mean large parties who need a small party to
>>>>> support them having to agree to fringe policies that most of the
>>>>> country do not  want, to get their own policies through.
>>>>
>>>> Quite, that is my take of PR. Where some small extreme party has a
>>>> disproportionate control.
>>>>
>>> But is this necessarily much worse than the present FPPT system,
>>> where possibly on a manifesto of false and optimistic promises, and
>>> even some downright lies, the winning party can achieve a majority
>>> large enough to ensure them an unaccountable five years of total and
>>> absolute power?
>>
>> What I would like to see, is that taxes are replaced by a giant web
>> site, where you donate your hard earned cash to whatever cause you
>> like - the NHS, the miltary, Schools and Universities etc etc. Or Dog
>> Rescue. our choice.
>>
>>
>> I don't think much would go to a bunch of bankers and civil servants
>> destroying the ability of the government to govern. Not that the
>> government of Western Europe has shown any ability to govern in the
>> first place...
>
> But none of the taxes go to the bankers. They do however PAY a lot of tax.
>
Don't be so naive.
Any banker who puts money into a windfarm knows that all the profit and
70% of the income comes out of taxes.

--
Climate is what you expect but weather is what you get.
Mark Twain

On 24/10/2022 10:36, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 23/10/2022 23:38, SteveW wrote:
>> On 23/10/2022 12:12, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> On 23/10/2022 08:18, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>>> In message <tj1fnt$vpid$1@dont-email.me>, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk>
>>>> writes
>>>>> On 22/10/2022 20:00, SteveW wrote:
>>>>>> On 22/10/2022 10:05, Brian Gaff wrote:
>>>>>>> I'd go for proportional representation. It would be rocky to
>>>>>>> start with, but
>>>>>>> we have to get them to realise there is no one true way, and
>>>>>>> pragmatism is
>>>>>>> the way forward. Whatever part of an electorate you alienate will
>>>>>>> not co
>>>>>>> operate and  you will lose  control. The way it is at the moment
>>>>>>> the next
>>>>>>> election will have the lowest turn out in history, if you want
>>>>>>> democracy to
>>>>>>> be real, you have to make people feel at least they are listened
>>>>>>> to. At the
>>>>>>> moment there is a vacuum while all the people supposedly at the
>>>>>>> top have
>>>>>>> never tried their policies in a real world setting as a small
>>>>>>> insignificant
>>>>>>> country. They still think we are the old imperial power.
>>>>>>>   Brian
>>>>>>  Although PR can mean large parties who need a small party to
>>>>>> support them having to agree to fringe policies that most of the
>>>>>> country do not  want, to get their own policies through.
>>>>>
>>>>> Quite, that is my take of PR. Where some small extreme party has a
>>>>> disproportionate control.
>>>>>
>>>> But is this necessarily much worse than the present FPPT system,
>>>> where possibly on a manifesto of false and optimistic promises, and
>>>> even some downright lies, the winning party can achieve a majority
>>>> large enough to ensure them an unaccountable five years of total and
>>>> absolute power?
>>>
>>> What I would like to see, is that taxes are replaced by a giant web
>>> site, where you donate your hard earned cash to whatever cause you
>>> like - the NHS, the miltary, Schools and Universities etc etc. Or Dog
>>> Rescue. our choice.
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't think much would go to a bunch of bankers and civil servants
>>> destroying the ability of the government to govern. Not that the
>>> government of Western Europe has shown any ability to govern in the
>>> first place...
>>
>> But none of the taxes go to the bankers. They do however PAY a lot of
>> tax.
>>
> Don't be so naive.
> Any banker who puts money into a windfarm knows that all the profit and
> 70% of the income comes out of taxes.

That is not paying bankers from taxes. It is subsiding the windfarms.
That someone can make a profit because of those subsidies is a separate
matter - it could just as well be a foreign company or a government that
makes that profit.

On 24/10/2022 12:26, SteveW wrote:
> On 24/10/2022 10:36, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 23/10/2022 23:38, SteveW wrote:
>>> On 23/10/2022 12:12, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>> On 23/10/2022 08:18, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>>>> In message <tj1fnt$vpid$1@dont-email.me>, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk>
>>>>> writes
>>>>>> On 22/10/2022 20:00, SteveW wrote:
>>>>>>> On 22/10/2022 10:05, Brian Gaff wrote:
>>>>>>>> I'd go for proportional representation. It would be rocky to
>>>>>>>> start with, but
>>>>>>>> we have to get them to realise there is no one true way, and
>>>>>>>> pragmatism is
>>>>>>>> the way forward. Whatever part of an electorate you alienate
>>>>>>>> will not co
>>>>>>>> operate and  you will lose  control. The way it is at the moment
>>>>>>>> the next
>>>>>>>> election will have the lowest turn out in history, if you want
>>>>>>>> democracy to
>>>>>>>> be real, you have to make people feel at least they are listened
>>>>>>>> to. At the
>>>>>>>> moment there is a vacuum while all the people supposedly at the
>>>>>>>> top have
>>>>>>>> never tried their policies in a real world setting as a small
>>>>>>>> insignificant
>>>>>>>> country. They still think we are the old imperial power.
>>>>>>>>   Brian
>>>>>>>  Although PR can mean large parties who need a small party to
>>>>>>> support them having to agree to fringe policies that most of the
>>>>>>> country do not  want, to get their own policies through.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Quite, that is my take of PR. Where some small extreme party has a
>>>>>> disproportionate control.
>>>>>>
>>>>> But is this necessarily much worse than the present FPPT system,
>>>>> where possibly on a manifesto of false and optimistic promises, and
>>>>> even some downright lies, the winning party can achieve a majority
>>>>> large enough to ensure them an unaccountable five years of total
>>>>> and absolute power?
>>>>
>>>> What I would like to see, is that taxes are replaced by a giant web
>>>> site, where you donate your hard earned cash to whatever cause you
>>>> like - the NHS, the miltary, Schools and Universities etc etc. Or
>>>> Dog Rescue. our choice.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't think much would go to a bunch of bankers and civil servants
>>>> destroying the ability of the government to govern. Not that the
>>>> government of Western Europe has shown any ability to govern in the
>>>> first place...
>>>
>>> But none of the taxes go to the bankers. They do however PAY a lot of
>>> tax.
>>>
>> Don't be so naive.
>> Any banker who puts money into a windfarm knows that all the profit
>> and 70% of the income comes out of taxes.
>
> That is not paying bankers from taxes. It is subsiding the windfarms.

That is, when the windfarms have taken out massive loans from bankers,
the same thing

> That someone can make a profit because of those subsidies is a separate
> matter - it could just as well be a foreign company or a government that
> makes that profit.
>

It is the bankers who lent the money that make the most profit.

A loan that is guaranteed by government - either directly, or by policy,
is called gilt edged.

--
“Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere,
diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.”
― Groucho Marx

On 24/10/2022 17:21, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> A loan that is guaranteed by government - either directly, or by policy,
> is called  gilt edged.
>
>

Only the regular interest payments and redemption value at par is
guaranteed.

Since 2009 until just before Kwackers budget, you would have to
pay a lot more than £100 to own £100 nominal of stock (*) which means
if held to redemption you are guaranteed to make a capital LOSS
since you only get £100 back, even if you paid £125 for them.

Interest payments give the total return, and indexed gilts are
almost impossible to understand (and price).

(*) if bought in the secondary market.

On Mon, 24 Oct 2022 01:11:36 +1100
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 23 Oct 2022 23:50:23 +1100, Jeff Gaines
> >
> > Indicating there is no real need for government.
>
> There is when the shit hits the fan with covid or Putin cutting off
> the gas supply.

Aren't you going to explain how we would all starve if the government
didn't supply and distribute all our food?

--
Joe

On Tue, 25 Oct 2022 07:01:43 +1100, Joe <joe@jretrading.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 24 Oct 2022 01:11:36 +1100
> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 23 Oct 2022 23:50:23 +1100, Jeff Gaines
>
>> >
>> > Indicating there is no real need for government.
>>
>> There is when the shit hits the fan with covid or Putin cutting off
>> the gas supply.
>
> Aren't you going to explain how we would all starve if the government
> didn't supply and distribute all our food?

Nope, I have always said that govts arent anything like as important as
they claim to be, but there are some things that only govt can do, like
war.

They are also handy to recover from the great depression when
they adopt the right policy like FDR did in the USA and when the
shit hits the fan spectacularly like in 2007/8 and avoided another
great depression with the right policy then too.