OT: Boycott speaks out about remoaners.

The greatest greed was shown through the printing disputes as well as the miners strike, where some thought they could use violence to support unjustified pay increases.

Greed is a natural animal instinct. Social systems that attempt to discredit greed, through socialism, fall in a downhill spiral. Examples are Venezuela and North Korea. Perhaps the exception is Nazi Germany?

The industries you mention are good examples, and I consider that the worst thing that this country ever did was fail to back Heath against the miners. The printing industry deserved a shake up, again it was scandalous, but what came after in the shape of Murdoch is probably worse.

It isnt justified to turn a whole countries philosophy around for the sake of a few examples. I know there were many more using their power to disrupt public life, but there would have been other solutions.

There has to be a "carrot" but it is unjustified to pay out millions to some, while others are having to use food banks and state support while in work.

No one creates wealth, it is often gained through depriving others.

AB

No need for you to confirm you thing any pay rise unjustified, Fred. Workers should be more than happy to work for any crumbs from the master's table.

But I'd not expect you to understand the difference between so called greed in an industry and state sanctioned.

The print industry was a prime example of a greedy employer giving in to a greedy union for many many years. Very little in common with the rest of industry. Basically, as I've said before, a badly run industry ends up with the union they deserve.

For you that is a reasoned post without recourse to slurs on people not holding your beliefs.

I'm impressed and live in hope you've turned a corner and feel able to discuss subjects with more in-depth considerations.

No wonder leftycuints are so deluded.

Wealth as a zero sum game?

That ceased to be true the moment a human being started chipping at one flint with another.

I have always felt that the morality of the Left is the morality of prehistoric man, but I never figured it was THAT atavistic.

Dont be silly.

If he could do that why would he be here at all?

And he owned the flint?

Trouble is in a planet with limited raw materials, not everyone has access to flint. The caveman didn't create the flint, he took it. If he wants to be part of a society he has to share the wealth it brings.

AB

Cavemen likely soon found out the benefits of society. Would take some time for humans to evolve to the point where some weakling was in charge because he had a wealthy father. ;-)

One thing to consider is that the abilities to fight for the survival of Ones country was related to technology, the health of its people and the numbers of those available to fight.

I do tend to wonder if this isn't a factor somewhere in the governments plans.

The number of people and health is no longer the defining factor as wars can be carried out by a limited number of people using remote missiles.

Who needs the NHS or welfare any more?

AB

I assume this sort of thing works otherwise advertisers wouldn't do it.

I suppose so. I can never understand those people who cannot or don?t want to discern between reality and fiction and feel grief,send in cards and presents,flowers etc to the characters when the storyline has caused a the portrayal of. a bereavement , illness,birth, or whatever So TV still has a strong effect on some who if they believe such things will think a product endorsement must be just as genuine.

I could see in the early days of television especially in the US where commercial TV was the norm and ahead of UK commercial TV which was comparatively late the moniker ?As seen on TV? could have some influence with televisions only being available to reasonably affluent people. Those of lesser means may then have been influenced by the thought that if the product was being aimed at the wealthy chap up the road then it must be good and just because the someone could not afford a TV that did not debar them from buying that product and in that respect at least be equal.

But that was 60-70 years ago.

GH

The amazing things is that it is almost impossible to work out what good advertising actually does.

People are if anything MORE stupid today than 60-70 years ago.

Good to know you understand Brexit voters so well.

ve some influence

They have been brainwashed by endless crap on the TV. They develop an entit lement syndrome at an early age. There is no need for poverty in this country but we have thousands of brain washed idle idiots with zero financial acumen.They gather at these food han dout places. You can also see them in the street where they are known as smartphone zomb ies.

It'll be soup kitchens next for these idiots.

No suppoose about it.

What has this to do with advertising ?

I don't think it works like that.

some influence

Can you understand why I'd buy a known adveristed product rather than an un known brand that has never been advertised and of unknown origin ? There's plenty of products out there that haven't been advertised on main stream TV and media, I'm unlikely to buy them and risk my health or safety.

Not really harry. The real brainwashing is social media. Where it is perhaps the norm to make up your own facts. Rather as on here.

TV in the UK is a minor offender in comparison.

If that is true, and it is the older population that have voted for BREXIT that must mean it;s the oldies on facebook and social media, which doesn't make a lot of sense to me, maybe I;m too much of a left brainer to work it out. Perhaps the retired do spend all day on social media more than the young do.

Well that's completely changed my mind. A washed-up,wife-beating former cricketer is obviously the best judge of a complicated political and economic situation. Thank f*ck for some reasoned, sensible commentary at last.

But at least Turnip loves him. Odd the way someone calling himself a philosopher worships the ground minor celebs walk on.