What did Canada ever do to you?

They are/were civilised enough to leave their front doors unlocked in droves, according to what I've heard.

I'm not seeing the connection.

I just got a phonecall from my solicitor - I'm due in court today (first I've heard of it); looks like I might be going down for that assault. Wish me luck. Off to court.

Good luck. Remember, honesty, respect and contrition go down well in court.

Fallible wrote:I'm not seeing the connection.

I didn't mean it in a nasty way at all, I was just so very pleasantly surprised I hadn't been robbed.

It's been referred to the crown court in a month's time. There were many lies spoken of me in today's magistrate hearing. The judge was good though. Worst case scenario I get 12 months. Best case scenario I get a fucking medal and shitloads of compensation...dream dream dream.

Thommo wrote:Good luck. Remember, honesty, respect and contrition go down well in court.

Thanks, I'll remember that next month.

I can't quite believe I changed back to this old avatar a few days ago lolz

surreptitious57 wrote:

Keep It Real wrote:
Incidentally I am personally in favour of a mixed economy circa 90% communist and I0% capitalist but I am calling it luxury communism for now - sounds nice and tangy

Did you nick the nice and tangy title from Ash Sarkar because by a very strange coincidence she calls it exactly the same
I love the employment of the adjective there.

It's a term in common usage these days I think. Much like capitalism, it does not have a 100% fixed meaning ATM.

surreptitious57 wrote:please explain how a 90% communist I0% capitalist society would actually work in practice and are there any real life models that you can point to as supporting evidence for this

ATM I reckon there should be some wage disparity between particularly pleasurable/dangerous/unpleasant jobs. Also some sectors could be associated with very high maximum earnings, such as the arts and development of green technology/theory.

Keep It Real wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:

Keep It Real wrote:
Incidentally I am personally in favour of a mixed economy circa 90% communist and I0% capitalist but I am calling it luxury communism for now - sounds nice and tangy

Did you nick the nice and tangy title from Ash Sarkar because by a very strange coincidence she calls it exactly the same
I love the employment of the adjective there.

It's a term in common usage these days I think. Much like capitalism, it does not have a 100% fixed meaning ATM.

surreptitious57 wrote:please explain how a 90% communist I0% capitalist society would actually work in practice and are there any real life models that you can point to as supporting evidence for this

ATM I reckon there should be some wage disparity between particularly pleasurable/dangerous/unpleasant jobs. Also some sectors could be associated with very high maximum earnings, such as the arts and development of green technology/theory.

Agree toilet cleaners and such should earn a 4 figure weekly salary.

angelo wrote:
Agree toilet cleaners and such should earn a 4 figure weekly salary.

Classic right-wing response to an argument no one was making.

What a comeback post from Angelo there. Well worth it.

Nowcasting household income in the UK: financial year ending 2017...28 Jul 2017 - Over the same period, mean household income is estimated to have increased at a faster rate than the median measure, growing at an average annual rate of 2.2% from £14,100 to £32,200.

So under strict communism the toilet cleaners, if sole earners in the household, should get 32,200 / 52 = £620 per week. Not quite 4 figure but you take my point. Most measures of income take the median average....for some reason.

A median salary with little difference between the richest and poorest would be very problematic indeed
Because I do not want to live in a society where a brain surgeon makes more or less the same as a binman
Hierarchy is natural and economic hierarchy is merely an extension of it and therefore should be accepted

Treating everyone as equal in economic terms is not practical or moral and should be avoided whatever the system
Until human beings start seeing themselves as part of a collective rather than as an individual this is just not viable

You cannot start from scratch you have to incorporate change from within the existing system because it is how it works
It would also help if those with radical agendas could see any flaws in their models because they will definitely be there

surreptitious57 wrote:A median salary with little difference between the richest and poorest would be very problematic indeed Because I do not want to live in a society where a brain surgeon makes more or less the same as a binman

Why?

Hierarchy is natural and economic hierarchy is merely an extension of it and therefore should be accepted

That's called the Naturalistic Fallacy.

Treating everyone as equal in economic terms is not practical or moral and should be avoided whatever the system

It's surely preferable to extreme inequality, and anyway nobody's advocating income/wealth blanket homogeneity.

Until human beings start seeing themselves as part of a collective rather than as an individual this is just not viable

False dichotomy - the vast majority of people see themselves as being somewhere on the continuum between the two extremes, IMO. Even the Chinese and the Americans.

You cannot start from scratch you have to incorporate change from within the existing system because it is how it works
It would also help if those with radical agendas could see any flaws in their models because they will definitely be there

I haven't heard any serious exponents of anything resembling luxury communism espousing it can/should be brought in overnight so, er, straw man.

3 logical fallacies in a single post - good going sur!

Do you think that brain surgeons and bin men should be earning more or less the same salary and if you do why
What evidence is there that most people see themselves as somewhere between individualism and collectivism
What are the flaws in luxury communism [ or do you think it so perfect that it has none ]

One stupid question / one evidence free assertion / one failed attempt to answer a question / so well done KIR

surreptitious57 wrote:Do you think that brain surgeons and bin men should be earning more or less the same salary and if you do why

Yes, because I do not think brain surgeons are fundamentally massively superior to bin men. Years of training required to become competent as a brain surgeon should probably result in a significantly higher salary, in order to reward commitment. Not so much as even double a binman's salary, however. 18 year old binmen and 1st year med students? They should be on roughly the same money IMO.

Oh woops - made the mistake of defining people by their dayjobs. People who currently work in brain surgery are not fundamentally massively superior to people who currently work in refuse collection. That's better.