• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


eFestivals last won the day on June 12 2010

eFestivals had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

6 Neutral

About eFestivals

  • Rank
    the value of your god may go down as well as up
  • Birthday 02/01/1998

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    in a field

Recent Profile Visitors

124,615 profile views
  1. Yup. And people in the west don't like seeing 'the poor' being raised up like that, not unless the west keeps the same-distance-advantage over them. Without trying to have a pop at feral - because she's saying nothing different to most - it's what she advocates when her ideas of 'equality' only stretch as far as the national borders, so that equality is a great thing but she wouldn't want everyone to have it.
  2. then BT have it now? There's defo someone else with live broadcast rights. Not giving c**ty-chops Murdoch or anyone else my money for footie, i'm not up on the details. The point is the big footie subscriptions are taken out by people to mainly watch the big clubs, of which utd have the biggest fan-base ... so it's always Utd that gets featured for the FA Cup (with the subscription services wanting them far more than the beeb does, because of that commercial angle).
  3. Not really. Before bits of land were fenced off, *ALL* land was owned by Liz's forebears. In fact, it still is owned by Liz. A freeholder doesn't 'own' land, they merely hold it freely (the clue is in the name). All land in the UK (and Canada, and Aus, and NZ, etc, etc) is still owned by Liz.
  4. there's a small amount of surplus - after all, money is in exchange for work which creates the surplus that then can be bought with the money - but in the real world it's not only that. Just for illustration, the BoE "printed" (electronically) £375Bn of new money which it exchanged for already-existing product (the already-existing part of that is important!). It "printed" another £60Bn just a few months ago, which was again exchanged for already-existing product. That new money has no already-created surplus attached to it, and there's plenty of money that exists with that same principle. It's via money such as this that the powerful retain their control. The amount of cash-money that exists in Sterling waaaaay out-strips what is available to be bought in Sterling. If that cash-money was attempted to be spent (which isn't its purpose, an important point to it; its existence is power, not the spending of it) then the result would be absolutely humongous inflation because the goods to that value don't exist within the current valuations. The way out of much of the shit we're in would be by either forcing that money to be spent to create inflation and so true-balance of money and surplus, or by destroying the money (perhaps by voiding, say, ten pound notes, much like India has recently done) without an exchange for it. Instead, it's been used within a smoke and mirrors trick, where the fingers-crossed-hope is that slow inflation over many years will depreciate its value to make its existence pretty meaningless in the grand scheme of things against all the 'cash' (including electronic) that exists... but it puts us in the economic doldrums while that happens, which you might notice by looking around you. So no. As a grand statement, the surplus you refer to doesn't exist... yet! The money exists to purchase product that is yet to be created.
  5. Oh, the automation meme, rather popular around now by those short on thought. Ever heard of the Luddites? They thought automation was going to make everyone unemployed 250 years ago. How's your job going, BTW? Simple fact is that human nature will find ways to use the newly created time caused by automation in a productive manner in some way or other, and those human efforts will continue to be valued. You need to get a handle on the whole idea of value before you'll get anywhere in trying to think thru the consequences of automation.
  6. it's that, but it's also more - or less - than that. It's a bartering token for a resource that doesn't yet exist. The wealth that money represents doesn't exist. It's a con, a way that the powerful created in order for them to to retain control. Do they? In which case you can tell me where all that surplus is stored while it waits to be used. There is no surplus. That's the bleedin' point. Land is unique in the world of resources. Land cannot be created. A friend of mine (now deceased) was a modern leveller, with strong ideas about land (mostly good, but also a few foolish things in there too). He wrote shit loads about it and it was scattered all around the net in various places, tho sadly it's nearly all disappeared into the ether in the last ten years, which only shows how fleeting our impact is. (last time i went looking for his writings I ended up in email conversation with his sister in Australia who he'd never met, just a few hours after their mother had died - which she took as some sort of sign from god, which was a bit freaky) Anyway, one day perhaps land ownership will be outlawed, because - to use a phrase - 'the land is ours'. In many ways the feudal system was more just than modern society.
  7. Some ideas for the possible site here... http://www.somersetlive.co.uk/glastonbury-festival-variety-bazaar-potential-sites-respond-to-eavis-interview/story-30068575-detail/story.html ... tho with each of them ruling themselves out ... apart from the Bathurst estate/Cirencester Park.
  8. see just above, where the true face of socialism (:P) says we should encourage the bankers to fuck off but putting them last to benefit from any new deal. In reality, these bank moves are more about an admin office in France for the real work to be done in London, as every bank has made clear will be what they do ... which is not quite what you 'told you'.
  9. What I wrote wasn't a justification for capitalism, it's a recognition of what capitalism is - a smoke and mirrors trick, the emperors new clothes. Money is a suggestion of resources without the suggested resources really existing. Money is not resources. There is no pile of goods on the quayside to match the value of that money, making that pile of money essentially meaningless towards the real-wealth (which is product and not money) that is available to be used. Money is not resources. A resource is (say) a factory, and what that factory might produce. Who owns that factory makes fuck all difference to the resources available. There are only the same resources no matter what the ownership. We don't have enough resources for everyone in the world to have a widget from that factory, no matter who owns the factory and no matter what distribution method is used. Money is someone's pocket is not resources, and is not a surplus of resources. Getting the world 'right' is not about taking money from one person's pocket and putting into another's, that changes fuck all of anything. Getting the world 'right' would be closing down the Roll Royce factory - cars for the few - to instead use the same resources to make cars for the many. Oh, here we go again. Get back to me when you actually and really reject the value you currently place on things. It's the value that YOU - you, not the rich guy - place on things which decides their distribution. You've made clear in the past that you value lives in this country more-so than you do lives outside of it (not a wacky idea, to be clear. It's standard nationalism, which everyone buys into to some degree). Everything flows from the ideas YOU hold, not the ideas of the 'rich' guy. You really need to get a grasp on how you personally operate value before you're in a position to try to decide to the value to others.
  10. Yet getting the best value deal will always be a better thing than a lesser value deal. Remember, this is about the whole country as one entity, where the value of the trade is the value to the country. Bankers might be c**ts, but they're still c**ts with a better ability to generate the wealth to fund the NHS than (say) whisky sales. This is a national trade deal. If someone is saying that lower value trade should be preferenced above higher value trade, they're someone to ignore. You used to be a big fan. I'm pleased to see you've wised up. I asked because most of those who still laud his principles seem to have a blind spot to the fact that he's not following them.
  11. I'm not entirely sure a vote at the end is going to mean very much. As far as I can work out, it'll be a vote for the newly agreed terms, or for WTO terms. If that's how it is, then the newly agreed terms are going to win no matter what they are.
  12. I don't think it's wacky to suggest that the UK might get just about everything of what May laid out yesterday - but she laid out the big picture, and not the nitty-gritty that will underline it. As I said, I suspect some of the 'red lines' will be crossed - by both sides - in actually arriving at that deal. (because we'll be properly leaving, crossing those 'red lines' won't be the issue with the public it might have been otherwise, i reckon). There's going to be a lesser 'single market access' than we currently have, so basically that'll be the exchange for no free movement, plus we'll still be paying a fee to access - which is something that most EU states wouldn't be able to afford, so I don't reckon there's much there to encourage others to leave. rance is probably the only member who might be tempted by something similar by the terms of our deal, tho they've greater public commitment to 'the project' and so I don't think worries about France will impact into things much (as long as MLP doesn't win their elections, anyway). Of those three it's really only Davis that counts for much (at least until we exit the EU), and while he's a tory fruitcake he's also fairly grounded and open to a well presented argument, so as far as trade goes it hopefully won't be too much of a fuck-up. He might be a brexiter, but he's also (as far as current tories go) a 'one nation tory' rather than an out-and-out ideologue. We at least have the current terms to make comparisons against, so we're not reliant only on what might occur to him.
  13. Just out of interest, how many of those were on the beeb and how many on other broadcasters? I suspect that a significant number were on Sky, to keep their subscribers happy.
  14. It seems pretty clear from May's speech yesterday that she expects to lose it, and they'll have to be something for a50 go thru the HoC's. The Scotland part is harder to predict, because of how of some of the competences over-lap, but it's clear that the SG doesn't have any veto rights. It's about whether they have to have a formal debate over it, or not. While how the SC rules for that is hard to predict, what Sturgeon actually does in all circumstances is blindingly obvious. She holds a vote anyway, and goes grievance-mining by screaming "it's an outrage" when the SG votes against.
  15. Johnny, DeeDee, Joey, Tommy, Marky or Richie?