Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
Romantic, but doomed to fail.

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.



Remoan Candle

A damp squib
  (+6, -2)
(+6, -2)
  [vote for,

Since it's nearly Anti-Catholic Bigot Day again (otherwise known as Guy Fawkes) in the UK, and Brexit is about to happen, as special celebratory firework seems appropriate.

When the EU is finally driven away from Britain, there will be cheers of rejoicing from all right-thinking (right-voting, right-wing Union-flag-waving) Englishmen (Now just the bogtrotters, whingeing money-grubbing jocks, and the dismal taffs to see off) and of course fireworks (tho sadly not 2 MT airbursts over brussels and strasbourg) (yet).

But there should be something for the remoaners, who after all face a dismal future (hopefully) crammed with disappointment and heartache at the demise of the post-WW2 centre-left social democratic consesus and the rise of divisive, intolerant nationalism leading to a colder, bleaker, more dangerous world (which has always been there, but their rose-coloured spectacles filtered it out up to now).

To assist, BorgCo pyrotechnic engineers (one of our largest R&D groups) have produced the Remoan Candle. Externally, it resembles a normal Roman Candle, although it's poorly constructed of flimsy materials, is deeply unattractive to look at, and is so unstable that it falls over unless constantly propped up by a pile of surreptitious EU subsidies.

When lit, it sputters pathetically for two and a half years, occasional spitting fur and feathers, then finally emits a long drawn out sigh ending in an very final death-rattle.

8th of 7, Oct 18 2019

Stephen Fry on why Brexit https://youtu.be/_HDFegpX5gI
[Frankx, Oct 19 2019]

Other people on why Brexit https://www.youtube...EoNxfA8lVNs&index=1
[Skewed, Oct 19 2019]

It's the same the whole world over ... https://monologues....Poor-But-Honest.htm
Globalization ... ? [8th of 7, Oct 20 2019]

Autonomous Collective https://www.youtube...watch?v=-8bqQ-C1PSE
Anarcho-syndicalist commune. [Frankx, Oct 21 2019]


       The poster-boy for hardline protestants since 1605; a bit-part player in a rather inept attempt to kill James I, probably fomented by government agents provocateur to coax various potential threats out of hiding so they could be efficiently dealt with by Fire and the Sword (or rather musket fire, extra-judicial torture, hanging, drawing and quartering, and public humiliation).   

       A jolly tale of repression, prejudice, state-sponsored violence and pointless bigotry that's just crying out to be made into a musical comedy ... La-La land, but with more heads on pikes.
8th of 7, Oct 18 2019

       almost a pun
po, Oct 18 2019

       //Since it's nearly Anti-Catholic Bigot Day again (otherwise known as Guy Fawkes) in the UK//   

I thought it was nearly-blew-up-the-politicians day.

       Anyway, wrong celebration. You're supposed to be aiming for Halloween.
Loris, Oct 18 2019

       Probably; but like Katyushias, Nebelwerfer, Calliope and the MLRS, pyrotechnics (those that lack a decent terminal guidance system, anyway) are notoriously inaccurate and rely on mass salvoes and an area effect.
8th of 7, Oct 18 2019

       //musket fire, extra-judicial torture, hanging, drawing and quartering, and public humiliation//   

       ... and nasty accident.   

       IIRC, after the initial failure, some of the conspirators galloped out of London in pouring rain to a safe house in ... Notts maybe? ... anyway, on arrival, they found their large supply of gunpowder had got wet. So, to dry it, they laid it out in front of an open fireplace ...
pertinax, Oct 19 2019

       Holbeche House in Staffordshire.   

       It just goes to show that enthusiasm is no substitute for competence. If you need conspirators, it's worth paying for good quality ones from a reputable supplier; the ones you get for free aren't worth the money.   

       The same is true of spies. Intelligence agencies far prefer agents that do it for money rather than ideology.
8th of 7, Oct 19 2019

       I just sit here in silence, wondering what the hell shift happened to this world we live in, and where is our salvation from those who would destroy it with their greed and lack of soul?
blissmiss, Oct 19 2019

       //lack of soul?//   

       Not really their fault [bliss], James Brown wouldn't get here for more'n another 300 years.
Skewed, Oct 19 2019

       //wondering what the hell shift happened//   

       I think I've worked out the answer to that, [bliss], but I hesitate to share it, because feelings will be hurt.
pertinax, Oct 19 2019

       [bliss], there is no hope, no salvation. Only a long, dark, lonely downhill road, and half a day out with the undertaker at the end of it.   

       We can do no more than to quote the profound words of the late Pterry Pratchett: "I believe you find life such a problem because you think there are good people and bad people. You're wrong, of course. There are, always and only, the bad people, but some of them are on opposite sides."
8th of 7, Oct 19 2019

       Did you add an extra bad or am I simply remembering a slightly less grim version to protect my delicate psyche?
Skewed, Oct 19 2019

       It's your rose-coloured spectacles switching in, [Skew].
8th of 7, Oct 19 2019

       Guy forks, guy forks, it was his in tent, to blow up ther houses of parly er ment.
pocmloc, Oct 19 2019

       "The only man who ever entered the Houses of Parliament with honorable intentions was Guy Fawkes ..."
8th of 7, Oct 19 2019

       One + for pocmlocs doggerels
not_morrison_rm, Oct 20 2019

       Meanwhile, back on topic ...   

       //the post-WW2 centre-left social democratic consesus [sic]// was indeed fatally flawed, and //a colder, bleaker, more dangerous world // is indeed out there (except in so far as it may turn out to be warmer, bleaker and more dangerous).   

       However, it does not follow from this that Europe (including its offshore islands) would not be better off sticking together, precisely because of the ambient bleakness and danger. Admittedly, it's somewhat academic for me since, as you know, I buggered off to the far side of the world some time ago in anticipation of things getting ugly.
pertinax, Oct 20 2019

       Moving off-planet would be safer.   

       // better off sticking together, //   

       It's called NATO, it's Baked and WKTE.
8th of 7, Oct 20 2019

       //Moving off-planet//   

       True, but I didn't qualify for a visa.
pertinax, Oct 20 2019

       //It's called NATO//   

       ... and it will provide limited protection from trade wars, to say nothing of the fact that it may develop an America-shaped hole and fall to bits in the not-too-distant future.
pertinax, Oct 20 2019

       If centre-left social democrats prefer to spend money on welfare rather than their own defence, they deserve everything they get. Next time the krauts overrun the frogs, the sensible thing is to do the same as 1870 (stand on the sidelines, cheering).   

       Didn't someone say something quite profound about "Guns and Butter" ?   

       // visa //   

       Well, that's not an insuperable problem ... step into our office, we have an interesting offer for you to consider ...
8th of 7, Oct 20 2019

       The only whining I see going on is from certain negative nancy types on certain websites who don't know how to write about anything that makes them content or uplifts other people.   

       I suspect this is why Ian left.
RayfordSteele, Oct 20 2019

       Maybe he should have negotiated an ITexit deal, athough a "No deal" ITexit makes more sense ...
8th of 7, Oct 20 2019

       // Thatcher shutting down the coal mines. //   

       A very "Green" stance, would you not say ... ?   

       Besides, it wasn't about shutting mines - it was about breaking the power of the unions. And it worked.   

       // And so I became a socialist. //   

       Doctors are working on a cure. The Russians and the Chinese have had spectacular success in that field ...   

       // regulation surrounding capitalism //   

       Huh ?   

       // what form of capitalism they are backing. //   

       The sort exemplified by <link>.   

       // a rounded domestic economy based on all trades e.g. including nursing, //   

       If you have a rounded economy for producing fully trained and equipped armed forces, you can get everything else you want by just asking nicely.. As a noted U.S. president said, "Speak softly, and carry a big stick".   

       // cause a brain drain in other economies. //   

       If your economy is prosperous and successful that is inevitable. Somalia probably doesn't have a huge problem with economic migrants from Europe or North America ...
8th of 7, Oct 20 2019

       //If your economy is prosperous and successful that is inevitable//   

       Hence the success of Brexit in reducing immigration. Simply wreck the economy and wait for the floods of people to leave in despair. In terms of achieving this objective, it's a blinding move and working out a treat - irrespective of whether we actually leave or not - families and highly skilled people are leaving in droves. Great. Well done.   

       Meanwhile, for people who continue to harbor an irrational hatred of the EU, then our leaving is doubly fantastic - it gives the Russians a much needed geopolitical leg-up at a crucial time. Having boosted their influence in the Middle East (going supremely regards Syria - and more importantly, the wider implications that Syrian influence naturally exerts on the petrochemical rich region) and having successfully pulled off the annexation of Crimea at Europe's eastern extents, Russia must welcome having a new fulcrum about which to exert more leverage on what would have otherwise have been a strong and difficult to assail EU. So as [8th] points out - with some bold military and intelligence moves, undaunted by foolish ideals of democracy, truth, decency or human rights, Russia is playing the perfect nationalistic game.   

       You can't win nationalism, unless everyone else is playing however, so additional destabilisation is crucial in the face of countries working together to solve international problems - NATO, the EU, certainly the UN all pose significant barriers to a nationalist agenda.   

       Specifically post Brexit, a UK-Russian trade deal hasn't been discussed much publicly - but is very heavily on the menu.   

       Some folks still pretend to believe the lie about how "undemocratic" the EU is, how will they spin the truth when they see us pivot towards the far less transparent and corruption-rife Russian sphere of influence? In terms of raw, undiluted power, the Russians do have the guns and exert a great deal of military and intelligence influence - and yes, it comes with some seriously shady political and economic maneuvering - backed both with money far from the oversight of the western hegemonic system of progress and transparency that we increasingly enjoy - but with coercion and assassination from intelligence and military agencies alike, the Russian model is rooted in an older and more traditional exertion of power.   

       For me, given the choice between //the post-WW2 centre-left social democratic consensus// and having my family shaken down by a gangster, I'd prefer the former - but would of course be likely to concede to the highly persuasive arguments of the latter. I hope it doesn't come to that - I'd rather fight my battles in court, than against a shady criminal organisation - like most folks, I'm not Batman. The law is often annoying - and expensive - and it's gamed by the powerful - but it's largely there for our benefit. When the fabric of law breaks down, people resort to vigilantism (both on local and national scales) and while Batman is cool, he's not real. The IRA was effectively Batman, and if they didn't like you breaking the rules, they'd shoot you in the kneecaps. It's short and simple - and if you're on their side - far more effective a solution than the courts.   

       Our system of legally-underpinned //post-WW2 centre-left social democratic consensus// is certainly not perfect by any standard, but it is the best and importantly least-corrupt slice of the global system. Still, maybe it's worth turning our backs on international law and order if it means we can sell more land to Russian Oligarchs in exchange for what's left of our manufacturing output.   

       But of course, this is too detailed a view to discuss in today's Britain, people were promised feelings and vague abstract notions of identity, and we *must* deliver on those sentiments - because...well never mind why - it's apparently not important. Also, notice that by even having an opinion, those with hurt feelings who are very quick to anger - act as an ideal way to shut down any kind debate - still, perhaps this is a good thing considering our increasing cultural alignment with a more mobster- style model of government.   

       So, we will (will we?) acquiesce to those who have felt slighted over the last 50 years - and make them feel better about themselves by overturning our entire constitution and make ourselves poorer in the process. All perfectly sensible when you look at it objectively. There was a vote after all, and by an overwhelming majority (ok, a tiny wafer-thin one, in a non-binding vote, blah-blah-blah, but who actually cares about the details anyway? We're British after all)   

       It is imperative we push this through at any cost - there are *hurt feelings* at stake!
zen_tom, Oct 21 2019

       Did you really have to wake this lying arsehole up & poke him into another WOT [8th].
Skewed, Oct 21 2019

       //Did you really have to wake this lying arsehole//   

       There there [Skewed] no need to get upset. Come on, we're all friends here. Seriously, it's a bit disconcerting that you're so readily triggered. Not cricket and all that.   

       We're all entitled to our opinions. Please learn to live with that. Despite your personal attacks, I've always remained civil, I would gently encourage you to do the same.   

       Also, what's a "WOT"?
zen_tom, Oct 21 2019

       I wasn't talking to you, Google it.   

       //there, there//   

       Oh & kindly go fuck yourself you condescending insulting piece of shit, have a nice day.
Skewed, Oct 21 2019

       hehe - sorry Skewed - but how come you get to be the victim here?   

       If you have a point of view, please feel free to make it - if you don't then fine. You clearly dislike me - and I'll be honest, the feeling is starting to become mutual - but I can't help being curious as to what it is you find so difficult about having other people voicing their own points of view? I'm a curious person, but not so curious that you might feel the need to answer, I'm quite happy to live with that particular mystery.
zen_tom, Oct 21 2019

       [Skewed], thanks for the link, it was certainly enlightening and informative. [zen_tom], I agree about nationalism, and am still anti-brexit. I do feel that “we” as a nation have been duped and manipulated by very wealthy and influential people/companies who are acting in their own interests, and populist media and self-serving politicians.   

       I don’t know if “we” will be more exposed to manipulation inside or outside the EU, perhaps it’s bad either way.
Frankx, Oct 21 2019

       //Meanwhile, for people who continue to harbor an irrational hatred of the EU, then our leaving is doubly fantastic - it gives the Russians a much needed geopolitical leg-up at a crucial time.//   

       With all due respect, I don't think it is helpful to mischaracterize Brexiteers in this way. I can certainly understand why many people wanted to remain in the EU, and I don't generally ascribe extreme motives to them - they made a reasonable decision. Other people made a different decision. Insulting either side is not productive, and nor does it reflect well on you, [zen], who are capable of greater wisdom.   

       //“we” as a nation have been duped and manipulated by very wealthy and influential people/companies// If memory serves (and it was a long time ago, now) most of the politicians, the banks, the financial gurus and big businesses were arguing for remain, not leave. The most vocal Brexiteer (again, in my notoriously unreliable memory) was a London bloke by the name of Nigel, best known for enjoying cigarettes* and beer.   

       (*Admittedly, smoking actual cigarettes these days is a sign of wealth, but not necessarily of influence.)
MaxwellBuchanan, Oct 21 2019

       //were arguing for remain//... I suppose my point is that the anti-EU backers of the Brexit referendum were not doing so out of an altruistic belief in the benefit it would bring to an average “British” citizen. They were motivated by corporate economic gain, or personal political gain. I do agree that there are anti-Brexit arguments that are also motivated by corporate gain and personal political gain.   

       I don’t believe that Brexit (in whatever form) will bring the benefits promised. But also, I agree that the deep-rooted capitalist interference in sovereignty (as demonstrated with Greece and with TTIP) is shameful and toxic.
Frankx, Oct 21 2019

       [Max] one big problem that comes up again and again - both here, and more widely is that *some* Brexiteers feel they are being mischaracterised as having negative motives, whenever anyone points out the negative motives of a particular subset of actual Brexiteers (or perhaps, when the Brexit leaders are fairly outlined for criticism, those criticisms are felt (or deliberately mischaracterised by the media) as though they are directed at the supporters of those leaders. Some is not all and pointing out an instance of a thing within a subclass is different to saying that all members of that subclass are characterised by that instance. It feels much like the opposite of that famous mathematical joke about the Black Sheep in Scotland - only with (some!!!) Brexiteers as the (anti) Mathematicians.   

       What's not helpful is getting upset and bandying insults around because someone shares a different point of view - I'm far from wise, but I do know right from wrong.   

       If (some) Brexiteers can throw out words like "traitor" and "string them up", "remoaner scum" and all the rest that you see here and elsewhere - then what's wrong with us Remainers (if that's what we are to be called - I prefer Patriots) bandying around a bit of the similar - is it bants? is it serious? Here we are, annotating on a polemic idea - and I write a polemic response - common sense might afford a bit of contextual leeway - or should we now all be asking for permission?   

       I don't ascribe the negative traits to *every* Brexiteer, only those ones who actually have those traits. And there are well documented instances of Brexiters voicing those kinds of opinions.   

       [Skewed] is a lovely chap I'm sure - but I have to say it spoils the collegiate atmosphere when you have to walk on eggshells and watch what you say because someone can't keep their personal sensitivities under control. I'm a bit saddened to think someone out there thinks I'm an arsehole, but I wont let it stop me sharing my voice with you kind folks - I hope once he's settled down, he can be man enough to apologise. In fact, I'll accept in advance.
zen_tom, Oct 21 2019

       <Switches on Negativity meter/>   

       <Switches to next highest range/>   

       <Switches to next highest range/>   

       <Switches to next highest range/>   

       <Switches to next highest range/>   

       <Switches off, installs -12dB attenuator, re-selects base range switches on/>   

       <Switches to next highest range/>   

       <Switches to next highest range/>   

       <Switches to next highest range/>   


       Conflict, distrust, emnity and despair ... another successful day ...
8th of 7, Oct 21 2019

       [zen_tom] I agree with you, and I’m still anti- Brexit. It is worth viewing Skewed’s link, because I think you both have, ultimately, the benefit of “British citizens” and humanity as a whole as your central concern.   

       I’m not totally “anti-capitalist” (because I acknowledge the human benefits achieved over the last hundred-ish years) and although I’ll get scorched by [8th], I am a socialist. But more than anything we should be humanist and globalist, which requires more and bigger cooperation between nations - for the benefit of the biosphere and future generations.
Frankx, Oct 21 2019

       // I don't ascribe the negative traits to *every* Brexiteer, only those ones who actually have those traits.// Your tone and context seemed (to me, I may well be wrong) to be equating Brexiteers with Europhobics who for some reason want to leap to the aid of Russia.   

       People who voted to leave are right to be sensitive about having motives ascribed to them. The consensus and official line amongst remainers is that it's OK to discount the referendum because those who voted to leave were simply stupid enough to have been fooled into doing so; or are frothing racists.   

       When political parties lose elections, they generally don't use - as their main argument - the fact that the part of the electorate that voted against them consists of gullible fools.   

       (Incidentally, given that a //UK-Russian trade deal hasn't been discussed much publicly//, I don't see how it can be behind the Leave vote.)
MaxwellBuchanan, Oct 21 2019

       // I’ll get scorched by [8th] //   

       No, no, no, Winston ... all we want you to do is learn to love Big Brother. Mr. O'Brien will be along shortly to educate you.   

       And to Give In To Your Hate, of course ...
8th of 7, Oct 21 2019

       //... another successful day ...// [8th] I'm glad you're enjoying this - strangely I've found myself agreeing with you for the most part - up to the incineration by thermonuclear-device part.   

       [Frankx] I know, it's mad isn't it - we're all aiming for something better. I'm far from being a socialist, but I have the (increasingly unfashionable) belief that rational people making rational decisions through sensibly, strongly and competently regulated markets (i.e. the EU) will both maximise people's freedom, and deliver an equitable and fair society - so our aims in that respect are aligned.   

       I did watch (some) of Skewed's link - the problem is they ascribe many ills to the EU that are just not the EU's fault. Sadly, those having voted in Brexit, the Lexiteers are going to be the sorriest of us all as they see their socialist dreams being pounded into the dirt by the far- right low-regulation, ultra-capitalists who are currently in the driving seat. I agree with the Lexiter's aims, but the best way to achieve them is by leading the EU in the direction they want to go. Not happy with fish quotas? Instead of voting in Brexit Party/UKIP numpties who've never bothered to turn up to the appropriate committee, why not fight for what you want democratically? Don't like regulations on anything? The tools are in place to do something about it.   

       More, if the Lexiter's dropped Brexit and concentrated on actually delivering real change - the money raised from a sudden surge in investment, the leap in the pound, the boost in productivity, confidence and wealth would easily be enough to say Nationalise the Rail system. Personally, I'd like to see Corbyn (or anyone for that matter) come up with some grand plan for maybe the Energy Grid. A National Energy service could bring jobs, wealth, investment and a sense of national pride to areas long neglected by successive English governments. But with Brexit, lofty goals like these just wont be feasible. We could be on the cusp of a new golden age, if only we could address the real problems we face, rather than this horrible distraction. There is a Labour plan of starting some kind of National Bank, to help invest in local businesses and industry, and that's a laudable aim - but you can't invest if you've got no money, a falling pound, rising inflation and economic recession on your hands.   

       What I have a great deal less patience for is this petulant idea that I see amongst the Brexit milieu which is that if you don't like something, you throw your toys out the pram and expect things to get delivered to you on a plate. (No Max and Skewed, that's not *all* Brexit people, breathe easy, you are a wonderful, wide and diverse group, each with your own unique, noble and precious ideas and extremely valid opinions. Not all of you actively espouse workshy entitlement - but you can see how it can come across that way sometimes)   

       I wasn't suggesting a Russian trade deal was *behind* the vote, or the campaign (though neither am I suggesting it wasn't - I'm quite open minded about the both), or even supporters are somehow pro Russian - Just wanted to point out another hypocrisy in the "EU is undemocratic" argument.   

       //When political parties...// win real elections, they don't trash the constitution, rip up the rule-book, hide the evidence, and pretend that they've won for the next 30 years. Nor do they label everyone who doesn't agree with them traitors, remoaners, conspirators, enemies of the people, "citizens of nowhere" and attempt to set the boundaries of discourse. The polarisation here started with and has on the whole been gleefully adopted by supporters of the two leave campaigns - hate crimes against foreigners has documentary evidence of going up - (yes, *some* not all Brexiters are horrible people - you personally for example are quite delicious) - but it seems a bit rich to start getting upset and sensitive about it now things are going so clearly wrong.   

       But on the wider point I certainly understand, through direct experience what it must be like to have motivations ascribed to you as a group - am I being over sensitive too? Here's a question, which might help distinguish the two experiences. If not *all* and only *some* "Remoaners" are traitors, which is the subset of them that are? Exactly which remoaners are actually traitors? Enemies of the People? Citizens of Nowhere?
zen_tom, Oct 21 2019

       Does it matter? Guilt by association will do the rest, like the English Roman Catholics in Tudor and Stuart times.   

       // why not fight for what you want democratically? //   

       Because nothing is ever gained at a conference table that cannot be taken and held on a battlefield.   

       If you're on the threatened side, talking on and on to gain time is an excellent strategy. But when your opponent brings out the nasty pointy sharp things, you gave to either yield, or fight. This is a law of nature, like natural selection, or diminishing returns, or unintended consequences.   

       At any time, an zero-sum game can be converted to a negative-sum game if one side percieves that they are never going to get what they want by asking nicely, and assess that their opponent lacks the will, skill or resources to resist a determined attack.   

       Clausewitcz would be your friend on this one.
8th of 7, Oct 21 2019

       Hang on. Where did "Lexiteer" come from? And what is it? It's probably explained somewhere up there ^ but I can't be arsed to go find it.
MaxwellBuchanan, Oct 21 2019

       //taken and held on a battlefield// the lines on the map are already testament to that process having worked its way out over the last 2000 years - isn't there a better way?   

       And I agree with the rest, insofar as they apply to any zero-sum game.   

       I just don't think this is a zero-sum game - yet. It is possible to transcend the zero-sum and move to a more profitable, more stable, and freer way of living. That's what we've enjoyed for the last 70 years - largely due to the establishment of a relatively peaceful (but, let's be honest, militarily backed) law-framed consensus. Now, post a rather nasty financial crash, the edges of that consensus are being eroded - just like last time post 1927 (disbandment of the League of Nations, Gold Standard and tightening of borders, and so on in the face of increasing protectionist tariff rises made in response to the economic crisis of the time) - well discussed here previously.   

       But, to your point, there is another law of nature at play here - that of emergent behaviours, increasing complexity and the nature of complex systems to coalesce and form mutually beneficial, new encapsulated wholes. This long-period oscillation between open/closed, global/local, growth/contraction, positive/negative cycle isn't anything new - it's like a tide ebbing and flowing - but leading up to something - we might already be there - who knows?   

       Meanwhile, yes, carry a big stick. But be wary of using it when the scalpel of rational discourse will be a great deal more effective if you're trying to cure a headache. (I know, that analogy would be a great deal better if you cured headaches with scalpels).   

       [Max] Lexit is the word for the "left-wing case for Brexit". Rather than the Singapore-style super capitalist Brexit of the ERG/Conservatives/Brexit party where the NHS gets "opened up" to "opportunities" from overseas and hard- working people's distressed personal assets are scooped up by wealthy capitalists, a "Lexit" is where we leave the EU and the same radical redistribution of wealth is performed entirely by committee and trade unions. Along with the normal (largely debunked) idea of sending home foreigners to leave more jobs for anyone left behind, the main thrust of the argument comes from the perception that we're currently blocked from using state aid to nationalise or otherwise help British companies - but the only block is from forming a monopoly in any given industry - which is probably not an entirely bad idea - and even that block is lifted in situations where the state aid is deployed due to market failure - like could be argued for in the domestic energy market, or railways for example. Practically, though, all these are work-around-able, as evidenced right across Europe today. So the avid Lexiteer could have his cake and eat it right now, without ever leaving the EU. And have a lot more public funding floating around to make a success of it.   

       //At any time, an zero-sum game can be converted to a negative-sum game if one side percieves that they are never going to get what they want by asking nicely, and assess that their opponent lacks the will, skill or resources to resist a determined attack. // [8th] true - and this is exactly what Russia is doing now - free from interference from us, thanks to our distraction/destabilisation of the EU - at a crucial time when we ought to be banding together to face up to this very real geopolitical threat. That was the (rather garbled - to be frank) thrust of my point earlier.
zen_tom, Oct 21 2019

       Why is Russia a threat ? All they want is power and money and to have their own way ... looked in a mirror recently ?   

       It's fundamental flaw in the Mk1. Human. Get over it.   

       // It is possible to transcend the zero-sum and move to a more profitable, more stable, and freer way of living. //   

       No, it's not. That 's just wishful thinking, a comforting self-delusuion promulgated by those who don't want to face, ha ha, a disagreeable truth.   

       Until you leave your squalid little planet, you have only the one cake to divide between an ever increasing number of mouths. Your only input is solar radiation. Everything else comes from "on board". Yes, you can use resources better. But you can't change what you are.   

       // Where did "Lexiteer" come from? //   

       An acolyte of the Evil Mastermind Lex Luthor, shirley ?
8th of 7, Oct 21 2019

       //Big Brother//... socialist, not communist.   

       [edit] Although, surely the Borg are Communist?
Frankx, Oct 21 2019

       Fear not, once you have mastered Doublethink you will realise he is both and neither, simultaneously.   

       Does it feel like you're walking in sunlight yet ? Or are you walking down a white-tiled corridor forever, waiting for a bullet in the back that never comes ?   

       // Borg are communist ? //   

       If you thought about it, you'd realise we're the complete opposite; a single entirely selfish ego with no thought for others - the ultimate capitalist.   

       There are no bosses or workers, no upper and lower classes, no kings or peasants. Just a single ruthless will, focussed on dominating the galaxy.
8th of 7, Oct 21 2019

       ...//no bosses or workers, no upper and lower classes, no kings or peasants//   

       ...sounds like...
Frankx, Oct 21 2019

       Ah. An autonomous collective!
Frankx, Oct 21 2019

       Indeed; but not, we hasten to add, an anarcho-syndicalist commune ...   

       Would you like us to show you the violence inherent in the system ?
8th of 7, Oct 21 2019


       Yup. I’ll be assimilated now.   

       So long as we can change “resistance is futile” to “resistance is an inherent property of most materials (at room temperature), somewhat inconvenient in many applications, but useful in some”
Frankx, Oct 21 2019

       Why not change it to "resistance is useless!"? Which pre- dates ".. futile" by 12 years. <looks around, doesn't see [8th of 7]; makes good an escape...>
neutrinos_shadow, Oct 21 2019

       // Why is Russia a threat ? All they want is power and money and to have their own way ... looked in a mirror recently ?//   

       Because they run on crime and poison their enemies abroad?
RayfordSteele, Oct 21 2019

       //no bosses or workers// Well, that certainly explains the Borg's perpetual inability to get their round in, as well as their need to borrow* a pony off of the Intercalary to help pay for getting the cube through its MOT**. I understand the Inland Revenue is also desirous of a conversation with you - apparently assimilation is in the grey area between "tax avoidance" and "tax evasion".   

       *I sincerely hope you manage to repay him. He has been saving up to cover the costs of a name transplant as soon as a donor can be found.   

       **Quite how a brake-light lens and wiper motor can cost so much - especially as they are interchangeable with parts from a 2004-2007 Nissan Micra - is puzzling.
MaxwellBuchanan, Oct 21 2019

       //keep the global economy growing//
There's yer prahblem. The myth that the economy (and the population...) can just keep growing indefinitely.
neutrinos_shadow, Oct 22 2019

       After applauding zen I find myself agreeing with bigs in some fashion on the macro level. But easy answers there are not, and simply selling the construct off for scrap without a blueprint for what comes after sounds like a fool's easy answer to be taken advantage of by a clever prick or three.
RayfordSteele, Oct 22 2019

       Ah. I think [zen_tom] and I mean two rather different things by //the post-WW2 centre-left social democratic consensus//.   

       [zen] seems to refer to Enlightenment and Rule of Law. I'm in favour of those things, but they're not what I mean by //the post- WW2 centre-left social democratic consensus//.   

       What *I'm* referring to is best summarized by three books, namely, Maslow's Motivation & Personality, Galbraith's Affluent Society and Riesman's Lonely Crowd, all of which were published in the post-war period and helped to shape it. Their principal common flaw was a tendency to mistake certain positional goods, which can't be shared, for more objective goods, which could be (though their common assumption that the Problem of Production was solved is also looking a bit shaky).
pertinax, Oct 22 2019

       All you need to do is look at France (the yellow vests), Grece (economic implosion) & Italy (national democratic mandates overridden by the EU) to know the EU is not a force for good, or democracy.. makes the assertion (all of) our woes are self inflicted ring rather hollow.   

       If that's not enough just follow the money, consider the remain campaigns main financiers, big banks & billionaires (there's far far more wealth behind remain than could ever plausibly be said to be behind leave), they're not in it for the common good & never have been.   

       And then of course there's the proof of the pudding, the very small taste of it we've had so far, since the vote the rate of immigration has dropped off just a little (plausibly due to people's 'concerns' about brexit & their right to remain after it), UK unemployment has fallen & wages have risen.   

       Clearly anyone who doesn't profit off the back of low wages (directly or indirectly) will be better off out of the EU.
Skewed, Oct 22 2019

       //wages have risen//   

       In real terms, as a % of the cost of living, not just gross.
Skewed, Oct 22 2019

       Skewed, the Yellow Vests have little to do with the EU - some want higher wages, and in classic French style, are striking/demonstrating in order to get them. Others support the far-right Le Pen National Front, and as right- wing extremists, may well dislike the stabilising effects of law and order, general prosperity and legal recourse that the EU offers all of its citizens.   

       Greece is an example of the EU being forced to step in after successive populist governments in that country stole money from their own people in order to buy themselves into power. The normal way out for a sovereign nation when that happens is to devalue their currency and short-change their creditors that way - but because Greece is in the Euro, that wasn't an option.   

       We're not (quite rightly) a member of the Euro, so that problem isn't one we ever need to worry about. Though personally, I don't think it's a bad thing to encourage sensible spending and sustainable borrowing through some form of legislation.   

       Italy is in a similar position - you need to run your finances sustainably, and, if you have chosen to adopt the Euro, that comes with some additional responsibilities - you can't just devalue, and neither can you default, which were the two pre-Euro methods out of profligate government spending.   

       So sorry, but a 3 for 3 strike rate there Skewed.   

       Now, in terms of wages - you're not wrong. A 1.9% real-terms increase in 2019 to June. There are different accounts for why that is, and certainly - as I said earlier, families leaving due to their being made to feel unwelcome will have certainly reduced supply.   

       After we leave, and the economy contracts, those gains are likely to be offset by a matched contraction in the demand for labour - so I fear these marginal sort-term benefits are likely to be undone.
zen_tom, Oct 22 2019

       And [Pertinax] I've not had the opportunity to read any of those books you mention (I'm still working up the energy to start tackling Popper's "The Open Society and Its Enemies")- but regards //[their] principal common flaw was a tendency to mistake certain positional goods, which can't be shared, for more objective goods// what, do you mean by this? What are positional and objective goods, and why are they different in terms of their being shared?
zen_tom, Oct 22 2019

       And in terms of //if that's not enough just follow the money// - following the money is something that the EU specifically allows you to do, through direct financial transparency and anti-tax dodging laws. So yes, please, do take advantage of those rights and protections.   

       Contrast against the shady criminal world of offshore banking, embargo breaking, sanction sidestepping, money laundering and terrorist finance that is enjoyed by some very wealthy individuals who would very much like to see us leave the EU and would lose a very great deal of influence were their web of finance be opened up to public scrutiny- as threatened by incoming EU legislation.
zen_tom, Oct 22 2019

       ... or rather, carte blance for government snoopers to pry into everyone's private business using the usual "public interest" excuse ...   

       They're not interested in preventing criminality (especially their own), only getting their sticky fingers on more of other people's money so they can squander it.
8th of 7, Oct 22 2019

       // other people's money // It's more about closing loopholes that allow people to operate offshore shell companies, hence diverting income in order to avoid taxes - so Google, Amazon, the 4th Viscount Rothermere, much of the Conservative Party, Farage and anyone wealthy and bent enough to benefit from employing offshore "wealth management". More colourfully, anyone funding terrorism, buying and selling illicit arms, corrupt governments, and large criminal organisations laundering proceeds of crime on a large scale (due to economies of scale, small time criminals still have to deal with cash).   

       Essentially, anyone with the means and motivation to operate outside of the established financial system.
zen_tom, Oct 22 2019

       That's what They want you to believe. They are motivated by fear. If they have no revenues, they have no power, and increasingly revenue streams are moving out of their greedy wasteful clutches.   

       Since governments are institutionally deceptive, there are no grounds for attributing any credibility to their published motives.   

       It should be up to the individual to decide how, when and where their income is disbursed - not some over-arching entity who claims to have their best interests at heart - but then consistently fails to deliver. "Government" should provide external and internal security, and nothing more.
8th of 7, Oct 22 2019

       So precisely what governments should and shouldn't do is a tricky question - Security seems a fair starting point - but you need to codify that in law - who and what is being secured?   

       That means you need to define property rights, and some tithing arrangement to pool the resources of the people being governed to pay for that security. Now you need a functioning administration to manage government buildings, tax collection, recruitment, supplies, intelligence, R&D and logistics. A sensible part of offering security might include hospitals for the sick and wounded personnel - so now you've got a limited health service. And that's just on day one.   

       I prefer to offer the principle that government should be there with the aim of maximising its population's freedom. This means you've got a yardstick with which to attack the kinds of dilemma you get, like whether people should be able to wield automatic assault rifles or not. Whether health should be offered publicly or privately - and whether children should be offered a free school place or not. I'd venture that on the measure of maximising freedom, you'll tend to come out with a reasonable outcome. And if it turns out that government imposition reduces people's overall, in-context freedoms, then that's the time to butt out.   

       That being said - incompetent or worse, corrupt and incompetent government is certainly to be rooted out wherever it's found. Having a transparent legal and financial system is a good starting point in discovering and identifying both of those common failings.
zen_tom, Oct 22 2019

       // Having a transparent legal and financial system is a good starting point //   

       Great ... when you find one, point it out.
8th of 7, Oct 22 2019

       Transparency is of course a relative scalar. There’s Deutchebank, and then there’s a credit union. There’s Wells Fargo and their cheating account strategies, but then there’s even less transparency in Panama where a whole bunch of tax cheats hid their money. There’s the SEC rules, and there’s the bank of Russia.
RayfordSteele, Oct 24 2019


back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle