After Neo-Liberalism?

[Gmart]

Another wow.

Another opportunity to converse which you refused. You seem unable to converse except within a very narrow viewpoint of the world.

 

[butchersapron]

For the people!!!

 

[butchersapron]

Another opportunity to converse which you refused. You seem unable to converse except within a very narrow viewpoint of the world.

I'm here waiting to converse. I've even initiated contact.

 

[Gmart]

I'm here waiting to converse. I've even initiated contact.

There is no need to lie like that. You are not fooling anyone. Feel free to actually put your views on the table, rather than trying to get people to put theirs down so that you can stomp all over them, or abuse if you cannot.

I am truly interested as to whether you do have any answers or theories, but it has been years now, and I did think that sooner or later you would have the courage to just say what you think rather than waiting for others to have courage instead.

 

[butchersapron]

There is no need to lie like that. You are not fooling anyone. Feel free to actually put your views on the table, rather than trying to get people to put theirs down so that you can stomp all over them, or abuse if you cannot.

I am truly interested as to whether you do have any answers or theories, but it has been years now, and I did think that sooner or later you would have the courage to just say what you think rather than waiting for others to have courage instead.

To be serious, my post #8 just makes you redundant.

 

[JimW]

If the people worked together, and the governments worked together for the people, then the corporate sector could easily be controlled. They are taking advantage of our inability to cooperate.

And here you are posting articles by the ideologues who set about attacking/enabling the attacks on every cooperative social institution they could over the last three decades or so. Do you think the corporate sector feels more limited in its ability to act by regulators appointed or from an ever-narrowing elite susceptible to its bribery and blandishments, or the mass working class organisations that even with a leadership also open to co-option had a long history of struggle?

 

[butchersapron]

There is no need to lie like that. You are not fooling anyone. Feel free to actually put your views on the table, rather than trying to get people to put theirs down so that you can stomp all over them, or abuse if you cannot.

I am truly interested as to whether you do have any answers or theories, but it has been years now, and I did think that sooner or later you would have the courage to just say what you think rather than waiting for others to have courage instead.

A daniel. Enjoy it.

 

[Gmart]

To be serious, my post #8 just makes you redundant.

That would be the one where LBJ commented next post, and because you refuse to engage you dropped out of the discussion.

 

[butchersapron]

No it wouldn't be. Engage me on that post gmart.

 

[TruXta]

Should I join in? Can Gmart take the additional abuse? Do I have to be in the mall in 20 minutes? Choices, choices. I'm A FREE MAN!

 

[butchersapron]

Should I join in? Can Gmart take the additional abuse? Do I have to be in the mall in 20 minutes? Choices, choices. I'm A FREE MAN!

There isn't any abuse.

 

[TruXta]

There isn't any abuse.

I think he'll disagree.

 

[Gmart]

And here you are posting articles by the ideologues who set about attacking/enabling the attacks on every cooperative social institution they could over the last three decades or so. Do you think the corporate sector feels more limited in its ability to act by regulators appointed or from an ever-narrowing elite susceptible to its bribery and blandishments, or the mass working class organisations that even with a leadership also open to co-option had a long history of struggle?

I don't know. Both act as a check to a degree, but with a fragmented philosophy to back it up this is useless. The corporate sector has the tendency to run rings around both through lawyers.

And I did not think that the article I posted was arguing against such institutions. All will be part of a post neo-liberal future. Regulation will become more ascendant now that the mask has slipped, but bribery will always exist, and the unions are too fragmented - we have discussed before China's recognition of the need to keep single unions. That needs to happen, but not through having just one. Duties are attached to roles, and thus the unions will need to be part of that discussion.

 

[butchersapron]

I think he'll disagree.

Because he's thick.

 

[Gmart]

I think he'll disagree.

There has not been much abuse yet, everything is quite civil atm

 

[butchersapron]

See?

 

[Gmart]

Because he's thick.

Oh well, had to happen, and it was inevitable who would start.

 

[TruXta]

Because he's thick.

There's that.

There has not been much abuse yet, everything is quite civil atm

Gah, foiled! You knobend.

 

[butchersapron]

I don't know. Both act as a check to a degree, but with a fragmented philosophy to back it up this is useless. The corporate sector has the tendency to run rings around both through lawyers.

And I did not think that the article I posted was arguing against such institutions. All will be part of a post neo-liberal future. Regulation will become more ascendant now that the mask has slipped, but bribery will always exist, and the unions are too fragmented - we have discussed before China's recognition of the need to keep single unions. That needs to happen, but not through having just one. Duties are attached to roles, and thus the unions will need to be part of that discussion.

This is utter drivel.

 

[butchersapron]

Seriously, it's drivel.

 

[TruXta]

Oh well, had to happen, and it was inevitable who would start.

Don't you have a constitution to write or something? That's your forever after isn't it?

 

[Gmart]

LBJ commented fine on your original post, go back and comment on his analysis, or put up something that relates to what I have been saying, but don't just refuse to engage unless we do so on your terms only, that is not a way to start a discussion.

 

[butchersapron]

Cold elegant analysis is not abuse either. What a twat.

 

[Gmart]

Don't you have a constitution to write or something? That's your forever after isn't it?

Are you trying to derail this thread onto something you don't have to read?

 

[Gmart]

Cold elegant analysis is not abuse either. What a twat.

I look forward to it, are you working on it now, or are you going to claim that you already have done so, and so you don't have to?

 

[butchersapron]

LBJ commented fine on your original post, go back and comment on his analysis, or put up something that relates to what I have been saying, but don't just refuse to engage unless we do so on your terms only, that is not a way to start a discussion.

I want this thread which is about a to be about b, If you have nothing to say about b then get off the thread which is about a.

 

[TruXta]

Are you trying to derail this thread onto something you don't have to read?

I don't have to derail this thread, that's already been done. It's pretty crap as it is.

 

[butchersapron]

I look forward to it, are you working on it now, or are you going to claim that you already have done so, and so you don't have to?

Done it. Any response from you?

 

[TruXta]

I've got to shopping. That's what happens after neo-liberalism.

 

[butchersapron]

I've got to shopping. That's what happens after neo-liberalism.

Eat your tea as well you monster.