Brexit Schmexit

[zahidf]

7 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

yep - two years later and the brexiters still don't know what the fuck they want.

Any decent politician would have them on properly on the ropes with this, putting out videos of all the things they said when campaigning for brexit and what they're saying now.

Instead, we have Brexit Jez, helping the tories herd us along to disaster.

ha! 

Cant we just have a go at Davis without turning it around on Jez? not every instance of incompetence from the Tories needs it does it?

[eFestivals]

Just now, zahidf said:

ha! 

Cant we just have a go at Davis without turning it around on Jez? not every instance of incompetence from the Tories needs it does it?

Davis isn't going to save us in any circumstances.

You hope Jez might, same as me. How the fuck is it going apart from tory-tory-tory???

 

[zahidf]

9 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Davis isn't going to save us in any circumstances.

You hope Jez might, same as me. How the fuck is it going apart from tory-tory-tory???

 

Hope labour can. Wether jez can remains to be seen

 

This makes me laugh

 

[eFestivals]

11 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Hope labour can. Wether jez can remains to be seen

Jez is the key, no one else.

If the Labour motion for "a" single market deal goes ahead, Jez will whip his MPs against the Lords EEA amendment which means it won't pass.

If you're having trouble with the Jez/Brexit thing, there's a briefing note his team has provided to MPs about the motion, which explains that Labour - or at least, Jez - are against free-movement immigration.

Go on, do what you always do when someone says they're against immigration.

 

[feral chile]

2 hours ago, pink_triangle said:

I think that’s just making excuses. I remember having a crappy job between university. The English used to moan how the poles would make them look bad due to their work ethic. My friend (who worked long shifts on a farm) answer was work harder! 

Fruit picking may be a tough job, but it’s preferable to no job at all.

 

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

yep, the idea that work is only about personal satisfaction and enrichment and not about earning your right to live is one for the w*nkers, worthy of the most self-entitled tory.

 

Could this be a gender thing? I'm fortunate that I've found local, stable work, but I can't imagine having to leave my kids to go live in a caravan to maybe pick fruit if circumstances allowed, to earn NMW for a few weeks.

Family comes first, and I can't imagine Brits feeling this was worth it.

Maybe locals would do it. The whole point of travelling to another country to work is that it was once worth it. Not much point if you have nothing to take back home.

[eFestivals]

6 minutes ago, feral chile said:

Could this be a gender thing? I'm fortunate that I've found local, stable work, but I can't imagine having to leave my kids to go live in a caravan to maybe pick fruit if circumstances allowed, to earn NMW for a few weeks.

very definitely not!! Back in the day it was mainly the women who went and did the harvesting, and took their kids with them.

7 minutes ago, feral chile said:

Family comes first

How's that done then? By having someone else provide for them, or the family serving the family's needs?

8 minutes ago, feral chile said:

Not much point if you have nothing to take back home.

self-entitled tory bollocks. If you heard a tory talking about how it was fair to ride off the backs of others there'd be no shutting you up.

The point of work is about working your own survival, as it seems to have passed you by.

[pink_triangle]

29 minutes ago, feral chile said:

 

Could this be a gender thing? I'm fortunate that I've found local, stable work, but I can't imagine having to leave my kids to go live in a caravan to maybe pick fruit if circumstances allowed, to earn NMW for a few weeks.

Family comes first, and I can't imagine Brits feeling this was worth it.

Maybe locals would do it. The whole point of travelling to another country to work is that it was once worth it. Not much point if you have nothing to take back home.

I accept that may be an issue in many single parent families. I think there are many workers who could easily accommodate it short term.

[feral chile]

30 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

very definitely not!! Back in the day it was mainly the women who went and did the harvesting, and took their kids with them.

How's that done then? By having someone else provide for them, or the family serving the family's needs?

self-entitled tory bollocks. If you heard a tory talking about how it was fair to ride off the backs of others there'd be no shutting you up.

The point of work is about working your own survival, as it seems to have passed you by.

It's socialist bollocks. 

Back in the day, children went up chimneys, streets ran with shit, the masses were illiterate, no schools for kids so nothing stopping desperate familes trying to stave off starvation by moving to work without a permanent home.

Ah, the good old days!

Then some namby pambies invented something called society and social justice. And the NHS and the welfare state. Something tells me I wouldn't earn the £50K that it's costing the NHS for just one of the treatments that's increasing my survival odds. The NHS can now afford another of my treatments as it costs a mere £8 a month for the generic drug instead of £80 a month before the patent run out. That's £8 a month for 10 years. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Working my own survival? There's not one of the masses that can afford to do that. Because of the economic disparity within society.

Why fixate on benefits?

Because the media does.

Edited June 7, 2018 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

12 minutes ago, feral chile said:

Then some namby pambies invented something called society and social justice.

they did. And the w*nkers added on a bit, that it's OK to ride off others just like a tory.

There's more than one angle to social justice, including the angle that it's *everyone's social responsibility to contribute to their own existence.

* obviously, excluding those with special needs. Which means each person has to put in extra to help cover for those with special needs.

Care to tell me why you think some are too special to contribute, and deserve the rewards of other people's work?

Edited June 7, 2018 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

17 minutes ago, feral chile said:

Working my own survival? There's not one of the masses that can afford to do that. Because of the economic disparity within society.

yeah, it just falls from the air, because you're worth it.

And your words there only prove you an idiot who understands nothing about what you have.

 

17 minutes ago, feral chile said:

Why fixate on benefits?

you're the one who mentioned that, not me.

I simply referred to the moral imperative to put in the effort to contribute to your own existence.

Edited June 7, 2018 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

48 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

How's that done then? By having someone else provide for them, or the family serving the family's needs?

you seem to have dodged this one feral. Any reason why...?

 

[feral chile]

3 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

they did. And the w*nkers added on a bit, that it's OK to ride off others just like a tory.

There's more than one angle to social justice, including the angle that it's *everyone's social responsibility to contribute to their own existence.

* obviously, excluding those with special needs. Which means each person has to put in extra to help cover for those with special needs.

Care to tell me why you think some are too special to contribute, and deserve the rewards of other people's work?

Most of us enjoy the rewards of other people's work. And they also, because they profit from other people's work.

Your argument only holds if all work was valued equally.

[eFestivals]

3 minutes ago, feral chile said:

Most of us enjoy the rewards of other people's work.

We might do, depending on our position in society.

But that doesn't give an excuse for refusing to contribute, does it?

[eFestivals]

4 minutes ago, feral chile said:

Your argument only holds if all work was valued equally.

Not true.

See above.

[feral chile]

5 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

yeah, it just falls from the air, because you're worth it.

And your words there only prove you an idiot who understands nothing about what you have.

 

you're the one who mentioned that, not me.

I simply referred to the moral imperative to put in the effort to contribute to your own existence.

Moral imperative my arse.

It doesn't fall from the air. I don't pay for it either despite working full time. Profit and surplus pays for it.

Tell you what, you only use what you pay for and see how far you get.

Why don't we all get paid equally? Why do pharmaceutical companies get to charge so much for drugs under patent?

Answer that without working for survival rhetoric and without justifications of value.

[feral chile]

4 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Not true.

See above.

Have feminists taught you nothing? Are you saying women only contribute if they're fulfilling some capitalist wet dream? We should neglect our kids to make others richer as our duty?

WASPs rule uk.

[eFestivals]

Just now, feral chile said:

Moral imperative my arse.

It doesn't fall from the air. I don't pay for it either despite working full time. Profit and surplus pays for it.

where's the surplus, feral?

Unless you can point to a pile of surplus stuff and demand it's shared out, there is no surplus stuff to share out.

'profit' is a money myth. There is no profit, there is only today's resources.

Just now, feral chile said:

Tell you what, you only use what you pay for and see how far you get.

Oh look, you've had to lie about what i've said.

 

Just now, feral chile said:

Why don't we all get paid equally?

why don't we contribute equally?

It's just as valid a question, and mine is at the sharper end of things - because without the contribution there is no pay, to be shared equally or otherwise.

 

Just now, feral chile said:

Why do pharmaceutical companies get to charge so much for drugs under patent?

because, perhaps, that drug didn't appear by magic - but instead took the real working contributions of real people?

(that's not me claiming everything about drug pricing is justifiable, btw ... but drug companies aren't making the margins across their whole business which your argument suggests)

Just now, feral chile said:

Answer that without working for survival rhetoric and without justifications of value.

Why? You rolled out that line with a (self) justification of value for the drug.

 

 

 

[feral chile]

9 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

We might do, depending on our position in society.

But that doesn't give an excuse for refusing to contribute, does it?

 

9 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Not true.

See above.

Proving my point by devaluing everything outside paid work as non contributory.

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, feral chile said:

Have feminists taught you nothing? Are you saying women only contribute if they're fulfilling some capitalist wet dream? We should neglect our kids to make others richer as our duty?

WASPs rule uk.

That's just your tiny mind. 

I'm simply pointing out that if a person/family/society wants high reward, that high reward can *ONLY* come from the result of high effort.

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, feral chile said:

Proving my point by devaluing everything outside paid work as non contributory.

Your tiny mind again.

I'm saying that your own working of what value is a worse valuation than the one you're rejecting, because you value everything which comes from work without recognising the value of the work that creates it.

[feral chile]

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

where's the surplus, feral?

Unless you can point to a pile of surplus stuff and demand it's shared out, there is no surplus stuff to share out.

'profit' is a money myth. There is no profit, there is only today's resources.

Oh look, you've had to lie about what i've said.

 

why don't we contribute equally?

It's just as valid a question, and mine is at the sharper end of things - because without the contribution there is no pay, to be shared equally or otherwise.

 

because, perhaps, that drug didn't appear by magic - but instead took the real working contributions of real people?

(that's not me claiming everything about drug pricing is justifiable, btw ... but drug companies aren't making the margins across their whole business which your argument suggests)

Why? You rolled out that line with a (self) justification of value for the drug.

 

 

 

I never understand how you say there's no surplus or profit.

So how come the drugs don't cost the generic price from the start?

[feral chile]

4 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

That's just your tiny mind. 

I'm simply pointing out that if a person/family/society wants high reward, that high reward can *ONLY* come from the result of high effort.

That's my point. The high reward for fruit pickers evaporated with the drop in exchange rate.

The answer is to make this work worth someone's effort. Just like everyone else, except those not in paid work, are allowed as a socially acceptable motivation.

[eFestivals]

18 minutes ago, feral chile said:

I never understand how you say there's no surplus or profit.

Try it another way. Show me where the surplus is, to prove there is a surplus.

You can't, can you? Because there is no surplus.

Money meanwhile, has an infinite surplus - proving that it has no relationship to the finite resources which exist.

Quote

So how come the drugs don't cost the generic price from the start?

because they don't simply appear from the sky in the first place?

The generic price is (just) the cost of production, after the costs of creation are removed. 

The drug company carries those costs of creation. It's not unreasonable for those costs of creation to be returned to them via an initial high price, is it?

Cos otherwise, if no one is paying for the costs of creation, there will be no creation (or at least, not at anything like the speed creations happen).

Edited June 7, 2018 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, feral chile said:

That's my point. The high reward for fruit pickers evaporated with the drop in exchange rate.

but why do fruit pickers deserve a *high* reward, as opposed to (just) a reward?

You're demanding that they have a high reward before even seeing if they're deserving of it ... and even if picker-A is deserving of a high reward, that doesn't justify a high reward for picker-B.

Higher reward is a consequence of higher effort, not just because you say so.

(and i'll point out: that's Marxist, not tory.)

 

2 minutes ago, feral chile said:

The answer is to make this work worth someone's effort.

survival isn't worth the effort?

Oh, you think by-default all humans are deserving of more than survival. I'm pointing out that without work there is not even survival.

 

2 minutes ago, feral chile said:

Just like everyone else, except those not in paid work, are allowed as a socially acceptable motivation.

What's socially acceptable about refusing to contribute?

[feral chile]

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Try it another way. Show me where the surplus is, to prove there is a surplus.

You can't, can you? Because there is no surplus.

Money meanwhile, has an infinite surplus - proving that it has no relationship to the finite resources which exist.

because they don't simply appear from the sky in the first place?

The generic price is (just) the cost of production, after the costs of creation are removed. 

The drug company carries those costs of creation. It's not unreasonable for those costs of creation to be returned to them via an initial high price, is it?

Cost otherwise, if no one is paying for the costs of creation, there will be no creation (or at least, not at anything like the speed creations happen).

The surplus, from your argument, would surely be, anything above subsistence level?

People need incentives to work. Particularly in innovative areas like cancer research. So the researchers might well have altruistic motives but need the financial backing necessary to conduct the research. And the drug needs to be tested and manufactured.

The purchase price of the drug dropped tenfold the instant the patent expired. That means a profit, and motivations built on something other than contributions to society. Like greed.

So you have profit making companies paying more altruistic employees to contribute life saving drugs to society.

The researchers don't get the difference between cost and purchase price, they're one of the costs.

But that difference is what motivates the companies. Profit. A return on their investment.

And, a purchase price ten times more than what's still a profitable transaction, I'd say signifies  greed exploiting need.