[Rich]

Inequality in the West has increased to staggering levels in the past half-century. It was reduced markedly in the first half of the 20th century. Something other than population levels was at work, no?

Yes the World Wars for starters. They were, fantastic, utterly fantastic for reducing inequality. I have never argued that population is the only factor nor have I argued we need to return to pre-neolithic population levels. Rally what I'm saying should be quite obvious. More people means less land per person. Less land makes poorer, it doesn't matter what peoples priorities, whether its small holder farms like the American sixteenth to eighteenth century immigrants, a bigger garden, a second home, city parks, second homes, partial commons such as private farmland with rambler access or national nature reserves. more people require more roads, more shops, more car parks. It all takes up land.

Nor have I argues that lower population is sufficient to cure all societies ills. But low population such as Norway facilitate progressive socialist wealth sharing redistribution and other progressive measures. The reason the United States is not socialist despite being low population density is Blacks. This is why European Libertarians were so keen to flood Europe with non Whites and alien cultures. They were very envious of the United States.

[Nonsense]

There has been no increase in buying power. It now takes two people working in most families to have the buying power of one person pre womens liberation. Another movement that was used to depress wages under the guise of being morally correct, which it was IMO.

"There has been no increase in buying power".

That is true.

Let us look at some of the reasons why & who are affected.

The Tories were elected to eliminate the DEFICIT, that 'goalpost' has now been shifted past the next general election in 2020.

The TORIES introduced policies to deal with that deficit, those affected were\are, in the main, welfare claimants(who have\are funding the American corporate sector that have contracts with the UK government , to get people off 'welfare, into work')the disabled, pensioners & those(less so)on Universal Credit.

People assume that as pensioners get an annual increase of 2.5% per annum, that they are getting preferential treatment-WRONG!

Of that 2.5%, like the rest of the population, but unable to do anything about it until the next election,the following is TRUE & FACTUAL;-

The 'real' annual BSP increase is not 2.5%, but 1.484% & that's before the other increases in taxes that have been imposed by the Tories.
This is because in 2010, the TORIES increased V.A.T from 15%-17.5% & from 2011 from 17.5-20%.

Each of those increases lifted the CPI by approximately(2010)0.4% & (2011) 0.76 percentage points.

That increased CPI inflation by approximately 1.16 % alone, that means that for every £1 spent by pensioners, 1.16 pence went straight back to the Treasury, that 1.16 pence does not buy anything,, it means that for something that once cost £1, the pensioner, like everyone else, would thereafter have to pay £1.016 for that same item, NOT taking into account any other price increases added for other 'spurious' reasons, in order to increase profits or other tax increases since.

The net effect is this, that the pensioners have suffered REAL FALLS IN THEIR LIVING STANDARDS SINCE 2010, CONTRADICTING CAMERON'S PROMISE TO PENSIONERS,THAT THEY WILL BE ABLE TO LIVE IN 'DIGNITY' UNDER THE TORIES-BROKEN PROMISES, LIES THAT HAVE BEEN KEPT.

NOW, look at the issue of raising the state pension age, I will not go into the actions of two hypocrites that served as pension ministers under this government, but, which have both of them working for the private pension section & continue uttering the fallacious nonsense that is normal for lying politicians.

Raising the state pension age is a 'class' issue, aided, by the Labour Party,it makes the poorer working class work until very late in their lives, 'retirement' will become an unaffordable 'luxury' to them & the younger generations.

The 'auto-enrolment' that younger people have been conscripted into(another 'Labour' SCAM)will NOT raise their standard of living in retirement, it is designed to relieve any government of it's responsibility to cough up a decent pension to the younger generations, based upon their N.I Contributions.

The 'real' value of those 'auto-enrolment' funds will be entirely wiped out by inflation, a government responsibility.

The issue affects millions of people in the future, who will live on poverty incomes, it's a 'class' issue, because the 'rich'\'better-off' will NOT be affected, as they can\will retire before they reach the state retirement age, having accrued wealth, subsidised by other taxpayers through the Additional Pensions Contribution Reliefs, that allows them to 'invest' money each year with tax reliefs at the marginal rate, that amounts to some £48 BILLION a year to the rest of us.

Not only that, they also 'invest' in 'buy-to-let' property purchases, as part of their pension 'investments' pot, which is also subsidised to the tune of another £26 BILLION a year by the other taxpayers, through the Housing Benefit System, which, effectively, is paying the mortgage interest for them , additionally, they own those properties paid for entirely by taxpayers, reaping Capital Gains as the 'icing on the cake'.

It stands to reason, that those at Westminster, WANT TO KEEP THE WHITE WORKING CLASS IN THEIR PLACE AT THE BOTTOM,SO THAT THE PARASITES MENTIONED ABOVE CAN CRIMINALLY MILK THE SYSTEM TO THEIR OWN ENDS.
WHEN THE PEOPLE CANNOT AFFORD THE RENTS WITH THE ECONOMY SUFFERING,THATS NO 'PROBLEM', THEY INSTRUCT THE BANK OF ENGLAND TO 'PRINT' MORE MONEY WITH QE,THUS RAISING INFLATION FOR PENSIONERS OR CLAIMANTS THAT HAVE HAD THEIR PENSIONS-BENEFITS DEPRECIATED BY THE TORIES & PUMPING THOSE QE £BILLIONS INTO THE POCKETS OF THE RICH OR BETTER-OFF.

For 'claimants' under the TORIES, these American companies are paid with money that is saved by taking claimants off benefits, or reducing the amounts paid to them.


The analogy that comes to mind, is the NAZI FASCIST in ww2, who, when gathering Jews into town or village squares, to transport them to the extermination camps, took any money they had, as the 'fare' to be paid, for the 'trip' for 'resettlement' AKA 'EXTERMINATION'.

That IS what the TORIES are doing in their welfare policies.

For 'DISABLED' people over retirement age still on DLA, with no 'change' in condition of their disability, they too are being penalised for no reason at all, other than being victims of the TORY FASCIST POLICY TOWARDS THEM.

They paid their National Insurance when working & are having their benefit stolen from them, by denying them compensation for inflation.

For 'evil' to triumph, all that is required, is that 'good' men do 'NOTHING', that is what LABOUR & THE LIBERALS ARE DOING-NOTHING.

[quetzalcoatl]

Yes the World Wars for starters. They were, fantastic, utterly fantastic for reducing inequality. I have never argued that population is the only factor nor have I argued we need to return to pre-neolithic population levels. Rally what I'm saying should be quite obvious. More people means less land per person. Less land makes poorer, it doesn't matter what peoples priorities, whether its small holder farms like the American sixteenth to eighteenth century immigrants, a bigger garden, a second home, city parks, second homes, partial commons such as private farmland with rambler access or national nature reserves. more people require more roads, more shops, more car parks. It all takes up land.

Nor have I argues that lower population is sufficient to cure all societies ills. But low population such as Norway facilitate progressive socialist wealth sharing redistribution and other progressive measures. The reason the United States is not socialist despite being low population density is Blacks. This is why European Libertarians were so keen to flood Europe with non Whites and alien cultures. They were very envious of the United States.

I agree with some of this, specifically the Keynesian stimulus of the World Wars. I would just note the war part is not obligatory, only the stimulus itself (stimulus being defined as fiscal spending, not monetary operations). Most of the spending of WWII was actually destructive in nature: destruction of roads, buildings, ships, rails and rolling stock, aircraft, bridges, dams, etc. This is hardly an exhaustive list, but it will give you an idea. Had the same stimulus funds been spent on actually building those items instead of destroying them, well...I think you get the picture. Suffice it to say, war is not the actual stimulus, it is just the excuse for spending.

I disagree with the two items I have bolded. Land is not a source of wealth unless you are able to utilize it for rents, or to productively use it for farming, mining, etc. A certain population concentration is necessary for industrialization - it doesn't necessarily have to be large in terms of absolute numbers, but the geographic concentration is necessary. Even before the industrial age, cities were wealth creating centers of trade, finance, and small business; industrialization merely accelerated this.

Today, small landholders (1-10 acres) are mostly retired or well-off refugees from cities. Factory farms have eliminated the small farms of yesteryear, and their descendants have moved away or have sunk into rural welfare dependency. People generally do not create wealth from small landholdings, they are wealth drains.

I fail to see how the former slave populations are necessarily a barrier to redistribution. The attractions of idleness are vastly overestimated. Even urban poor mostly supplement their incomes through gig jobs as available; if the redistribution takes the form of decent-paying jobs then many of the perverse incentives of welfare can be obviated.

If anything, it is the white poors who are the greatest stumbling block to redistribution - they consistently have blocked it through their electoral choices.

[One Degree]

The US is not Socialist due to 'Individualism' being ingrained in the society since it's inception. Some of this was religious influence such as the Quakers. Some was of necessity of living on farms isolated from others. This has gradually been reduced in society but is still a strong influence. Reliance on anyone except your immediate neighbors is still a relatively new concept in the US. Socialism has long been seen as the opposite of this in the US. No other factor was as important IMO.

[Rich]

I fail to see how the former slave populations are necessarily a barrier to redistribution.

They are a barrier to a cohesive national identity. Maybe they oughtn't to be but they are. What binds together the citizens of the United States? What common identity do they share? They have the same passport that's it. Why should anyone feel any loyalty to the United States? Why should anyone feel loyalty to Belgium? Its not like the left even want to religion to define the nation. The left even want to get rid of common language where they can. The left have left absolutely nothing to give a nation identity, coherence or loyalty.

If your allegiance is to humanity, then why wouldn't you want to live in a world state? Now as to stagnating wages, the figures are pretty dubious. I would say real living standards of the western working classes have increased significantly since 1973. Nothing in economics is objective every figure, every statistic is prone to the bias, to the agenda of those who make the statistics. When we talk about real wages, we are talking about an abstraction. But here's the kicker, the world's working class livings standards have increased massively since 1973. So what are lefties complaining about? I thought the international working class were what you cared about?

[NightShadows]

What I don't get is why has suddenly anything remotely falling under the bracket of "liberal" now associated strictly with not only Communism and Karl Marx but all of this Globalist fuckery?

If you vote liberal, you're country practically sells you to the Bankers and you belong to Jerusalem or something. Meanwhile, there's all of this really hypocritical stuff that liberals preach and yet do not actually believe in whatsoever when put into action. I don't even know what the hell there agenda is, I mean would siding with the Bankers and letting them own the world really be for the better? because honestly I just have this feeling that many well off and privileged white collar/middle class and up all simply want cheap and efficient labor that's easy to control and make a profit off. So then, even though communism has never worked, we somehow force a "communist" one world type of government scenario on the world and call this "progress"

Not to mention, another hypocritical point: Why do Communists/liberals all have this weird notion of wanting to somehow "re-train" the world into being more "peaceful/caring" and as well takes on this responsibility and right? is it really something so easy to define and does anyone really have the divine ability or 'God' given right to do so?

It's this uh...kind of basically what the white European colonists do not only to countless races but most famously, the Native American's and it completely failed? because there's no such thing as civilizing" a group of people? it's makes no sense. It's just another joke that politically they try to pass on you this idea that there's only two forms of political ideologies that you get to pick one when looking at things socially and it's "collectivism" and "individual" are you serious? what happened to democracy and free speech? nope, can't have that under collectivism, we know that for sure. Just more "civilizing" and taking on the moral authority to take as much control over a body of people as humanly possible. Human will bends to the whip.

Anyway, I think that both Liberals and Cuckservatives as far as the political system goes are both "neo-liberal" at this point, and it was originally devised as a political system by the rich and wealthy. It's obvious that everyone hates white working class people, and the media feels content to gaslight and bash them all of the time. To generalize them all as simply being "meth addicted, redneck, white trash" who all happen to live in the "Rust belt" oh and what's wrong with Christians? pretty much any other race can have their culture/religion, but Christianity is just retarded.

(which is far from the truth)

Besides all of that, isn't Communism basically just a form of "feudalism?" you give everything to the state, and well, it's at least not that much different then Capitalism. You just give everything that belonged to the former land owners, to the new land owners, and then tell everyone they have "ownership of the means of production" and then tell them they can't have any personal rights or think for themselves. (slaves) Worship your fucking master.