Whats one of your unpopular opinions

[scottish]

What's the most unpopular opinion you hold?

As in, something a lot of people would completely disagree with you on (i.e. from "beatles sucks" to "the world would be better with Eugenics")

[buttons]

oh ya it'll have to be that i don't respect soldiers

[Empired]

I'm against all these benefits that the unemployed can get. Popular among some people, but people who are on benefits really hate me for that. I've always believed you should work for your money. That's what's gonna make the world go round.

I'm not totally against benefits for the unemployed; I understand some people cannot find themselves a job even though they're trying really hard. However I've always thought that if you refuse to work (despite being able to), you should only receive the minimum that you need. You should get a card which the government puts money on each week and you can go out and buy food with it. The card will not let you buy alcohol, cigarettes, a new TV or anything. No luxuries, just the things you need to survive.
If you want more, you should be made to go out and do a voluntary job in public service five days a week. Even if it's just watering the flowers around the city centre, you're still doing something so you deserve more.

I've always thought that would make a few more people think twice about choosing not to work so they can sit in all day and watch TV.

Did that make sense idk

[Kyle]

I'm against all these benefits that the unemployed can get. Popular among some people, but people who are on benefits really hate me for that. I've always believed you should work for your money. That's what's gonna make the world go round.

I'm not totally against benefits for the unemployed; I understand some people cannot find themselves a job even though they're trying really hard. However I've always thought that if you refuse to work (despite being able to), you should only receive the minimum that you need. You should get a card which the government puts money on each week and you can go out and buy food with it. The card will not let you buy alcohol, cigarettes, a new TV or anything. No luxuries, just the things you need to survive.
If you want more, you should be made to go out and do a voluntary job in public service five days a week. Even if it's just watering the flowers around the city centre, you're still doing something so you deserve more.

I've always thought that would make a few more people think twice about choosing not to work so they can sit in all day and watch TV.

Did that make sense idk
what about people with families to support that wouldn't get enough money to survive from a job if they come off benefits

i dont like when people make suggestions for social policy without a clear understanding of the universal implications. i guess that's unpopular. i dunno if i have any proper unpopular opinions. reading is fun. women are annoying. i dont care who comes into the uk.

[Inseriousity.]

lol charlie you don't have a clue what you're talking about but yes feel free to generalise a wide proportion of people. i wouldn't say that view is unpopular though.

[-:Undertaker:-]

That I don't support the NHS or state-run healthcare and believe the free market would provide a better system.

[buttons]

do u all hate poor people

[-:Undertaker:-]

do u all hate poor people

Well, what do you think?

Do you think I support the free market in healthcare because I want poor people to suffer or because I think it'll provide a better system for them?

[buttons]

can u explain the free market then?

[-:Undertaker:-]

can u explain the free market then?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_school_of_economics


A free market is a market system in which the prices for goods and services are set freely by consent between sellers and consumers, in which the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government, price-setting monopoly, or other authority. A free market contrasts with a controlled market or regulated market, in which government intervenes in supply and demand through non-market methods such as laws creating barriers to market entry or directly setting prices. A free market economy is a market-based economy where prices for goods and services are set freely by the forces of supply and demand and are allowed to reach their point of equilibrium without intervention by government policy, and it typically entails support for highly competitive markets and private ownership of productive enterprises.

Essentially capitalism.

[scottish]

can u explain the free market then?

it means we run like america where you want a kid? that'll cost $20k in medical bills and people who need medical attention won't get it unless their insurance covers it or they have the money to spend on it iirc.

[-:Undertaker:-]

it means we run like america where you want a kid? that'll cost $20k in medical bills and people who need medical attention won't get it unless their insurance covers it or they have the money to spend on it iirc.

The American healthcare system is a highly regulated system, it's basically government/corporate run.

The opposite of a free market system.

[buttons]

how is this going to help poor people?
ill keep the nhs. its done amazing things for my family after all.

[-:Undertaker:-]

how is this going to help poor people?

Better quality care, no burden on the state (which poor people pay for) and more money in their wallets.


ill keep the nhs. its done amazing things for my family after all.

The NHS has also delievered me, my three siblings and all sorts for my family members. But that doesn't mean I will worship it like a sacred cow if there's better ways of doing things. There were hospitals that delievered babies and saved lives before the NHS, and there will be hospitals delivering babies and saving lives long after the NHS has gone.

[The Don]

I'm against all these benefits that the unemployed can get. Popular among some people, but people who are on benefits really hate me for that. I've always believed you should work for your money. That's what's gonna make the world go round.

I'm not totally against benefits for the unemployed; I understand some people cannot find themselves a job even though they're trying really hard. However I've always thought that if you refuse to work (despite being able to), you should only receive the minimum that you need. You should get a card which the government puts money on each week and you can go out and buy food with it. The card will not let you buy alcohol, cigarettes, a new TV or anything. No luxuries, just the things you need to survive.
If you want more, you should be made to go out and do a voluntary job in public service five days a week. Even if it's just watering the flowers around the city centre, you're still doing something so you deserve more.

I've always thought that would make a few more people think twice about choosing not to work so they can sit in all day and watch TV.

Did that make sense idk

Hahahahaha. In about 30 years there's going to be some many unemployed people due to technological advances that the only way to counter it will be to have a 'basic income' for everyone. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income
Think about it, google already have a driverless car up and running. When that's finally perfected that's Thousands and thousands of jobs gone in the click of a finger. Lorry Drivers, Forklift Drivers, Tax Drivers etc etc. Eventually so many people are going to be out of work that we'll have to provide a basic income to everyone, and if people want to earn more then they go off to uni and attempt to get into one of the remaining fields which aren't completely dominated by Artificial Intelligence.

[scottish]

The American healthcare system is a highly regulated system, it's basically government/corporate run.

The opposite of a free market system.

how so, if it's a free market then the corporations behind the medical system are setting the prices (consumers aren't going to have a say, if you need a life saving operation you're not gonna say oh that's £1,000 too much nvm), so it means the poor aren't going to get any much needed medical attention and only the rich people/people with the appropriate insurance to cover the costs of them (which we all know insurance companies will do anything to void a contract/avoid having to pay up when necessary)

idk the specifics behind american, but from what I've seen the corporations set the price, consumers either need insurance to cover it or pay up when they want something and enjoy getting a massive bill after they've been in hospital.

[The Don]

That I don't support the NHS or state-run healthcare and believe the free market would provide a better system.

Like in the USA before Obamacare? Where people had to remortgage the homes they had saved all their life for to prolong their lives? No thanks.

[Kyle]

just because we have AI doesnt mean we will replace humans with it on a large scale

[buttons]

well i need more explanation. nhs has done more than help my mum give birth, its saved someones life and given others life saving surgery and what i need to know, is this free market going to allow us to afford rehab and therapy that my brother needs for the rest of his life? i know the nhs is going to be able to so im fine to stick with that

[-:Undertaker:-]

how so, if it's a free market then the corporations behind the medical system are setting the prices (consumers aren't going to have a say, if you need a life saving operation you're not gonna say oh that's £1,000 too much nvm), so it means the poor aren't going to get any much needed medical attention and only the rich people/people with the appropriate insurance to cover the costs of them (which we all know insurance companies will do anything to void a contract/avoid having to pay up when necessary)

In a real free market system, the laws of competition force companies to lower prices in order to compete. In a highly corporate system such as America or a state-run corporate system like the NHS, there is no competition and companies can then charge whatever they want.


idk the specifics behind american, but from what I've seen the corporations set the price, consumers either need insurance to cover it or pay up when they want something and enjoy getting a massive bill after they've been in hospital.

Corporations set the price in the NHS, infact even more so because under a government-run healthcare system (or any system for that matter) you have companies which are able to charge the government whatever they wish for things such as rubber gloves, building contracts and so forth.... and the government stupidly pays them because the government hasn't got to worry about running a tight budget as it will simply tax everybody to get that money back.

[The Don]

The NHS has also delievered me, my three siblings and all sorts for my family members. But that doesn't mean I will worship it like a sacred cow if there's better ways of doing things. There were hospitals that delievered babies and saved lives before the NHS, and there will be hospitals delivering babies and saving lives long after the NHS has gone.

Could you please point out real world examples then?

- - - Updated - - -


just because we have AI doesnt mean we will replace humans with it on a large scale

When AI technology becomes cheaper and better than human labour why on earth wouldn't it replace humans? You don't have robots calling in sick, going on maternity leave or asking for pay rises. It's inevitable.

[-:Undertaker:-]

well i need more explanation. nhs has done more than help my mum give birth, its saved someones life and given others life saving surgery and what i need to know, is this free market going to allow us to afford rehab and therapy that my brother needs for the rest of his life? i know the nhs is going to be able to so im fine to stick with that

You'd probably get a better deal with whatever insurance as you'd have more choice of what therapy courses/what to pay.


http://www.aei.org/files/2014/01/03/img-vcfriedmanmoney_094359876055.jpg

[scottish]

In a real free market system, the laws of competition force companies to lower prices in order to compete. In a highly corporate system such as America or a state-run corporate system like the NHS, there is no competition and companies can then charge whatever they want.



Corporations set the price in the NHS, infact even more so because under a government-run healthcare system (or any system for that matter) you have companies which are able to charge the government whatever they wish for things such as rubber gloves, building contracts and so forth.... and the government stupidly pays them because the government hasn't got to worry about running a tight budget as it will simply tax everybody to get that money back.

Realistically in the UK we're not going to have 20 different medical corporations trying to compete, we'd have maybe 2-3 at max.

Sure they do, they set the price for the NHS which is then paid for in tax revenues and not by yourself when you go in after a broken leg and have a $5,000 bill. If they can charge whatever they want then the government should sort out their contracts and find other providers rather than 'paying whatever' for them. That's something that can be easily solved by the government should they wish to do so.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Could you please point out real world examples then?

The pre-NHS system was pretty good and was used as a model for Canada back around the war so I have read in the past, and the older American system was pretty good too which is why America had some of the best care in the world. Sadly the whole world is now moving more and more towards state intervention in healthcare, but especially regarding corporate healthcare: including the NHS (see PFI schemes etc).

[The Don]

In a real free market system, the laws of competition force companies to lower prices in order to compete. In a highly corporate system such as America or a state-run corporate system like the NHS, there is no competition and companies can then charge whatever they want.



Corporations set the price in the NHS, infact even more so because under a government-run healthcare system (or any system for that matter) you have companies which are able to charge the government whatever they wish for things such as rubber gloves, building contracts and so forth.... and the government stupidly pays them because the government hasn't got to worry about running a tight budget as it will simply tax everybody to get that money back.

Yeah because corporations will not possibly collude with each other without government interference.

[buttons]

'more choice on what to pay' but we cant afford anything ?

[scottish]

Could you please point out real world examples then?

- - - Updated - - -



When AI technology becomes cheaper and better than human labour why on earth wouldn't it replace humans? You don't have robots calling in sick, going on maternity leave or asking for pay rises. It's inevitable.

Easier to program humans than it is AI for more dynamic workplaces (i.e. I need you to go do that today), and we'd have millions of humans hired to build the AI

[Kyle]

Could you please point out real world examples then?

- - - Updated - - -



When AI technology becomes cheaper and better than human labour why on earth wouldn't it replace humans? You don't have robots calling in sick, going on maternity leave or asking for pay rises. It's inevitable.
because it makes more sense (economically and otherwise) to keep people in their jobs and homes. mass unemployment would be careless imo!

[The Don]

Easier to program humans than it is AI for more dynamic workplaces (i.e. I need you to go do that today), and we'd have millions of humans hired to build the AI

Of course there will be more people programming them but nowhere near enough to offset all the workers lost from the industries that have been replaced.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I said it was an unpopular opinion. :P


Realistically in the UK we're not going to have 20 different medical corporations trying to compete, we'd have maybe 2-3 at max.

Not at all, 70 million is a huge market.

It all depends on how regulated a system is by the state, the more regulation the less companies you'll have which is why so many corporations in any field (not just healthcare) always lobby the government for more regulation as it prevents competitors rising up or even estabishing.


Sure they do, they set the price for the NHS which is then paid for in tax revenues and not by yourself when you go in after a broken leg and have a $5,000 bill. If they can charge whatever they want then the government should sort out their contracts and find other providers rather than 'paying whatever' for them.

They've no motive to do such a thing when the NHS has a monopoly on healthcare.


That's something that can be easily solved by the government should they wish to do so.

The state is incapable of spending and managing money wisely.

Just can't do it.

[The Don]

because it makes more sense (economically and otherwise) to keep people in their jobs and homes. mass unemployment would be careless imo!

From whose perspective, the corporations or the governments? How does it make economical sense to keep more expensive and less efficient sources of labour?

[A4R0N]

voting yes

[-:Undertaker:-]

Yeah because corporations will not possibly collude with each other without government interference.

Oh of course they could, but the more free a market the less likely that is to happen as you have less monopolies existing and more of a chance of that monopoly being undercut by a new competitor. The free market, like any system though, is of course open to price-fixing which is why one function of the state I would keep would be it's ability to investigate and prevent any price-fixing.

I'm not for anarchy, i'm a libertarian. Minimal state, but state action in some cases (courts, legal, defence etc).


'more choice on what to pay' but we cant afford anything ?

Why not?

[The Don]

Oh of course they could, but the more free a market the less likely that is to happen as you have less monopolies existing and more of a chance of that monopoly being undercut by a new competitor. The free market, like any system though, is of course open to price-fixing which is why one function of the state I would keep would be it's ability to investigate and prevent any price-fixing.

I'm not for anarchy, i'm a libertarian. Minimal state, but state action in some cases (courts, legal, defence etc).



Why not?

Non intervention from the government is more likely to lead to monopolies, not the opposite. How on earth do you think Standard Oil got so big before it was eventually broken up by the government?

[-:Undertaker:-]

Non intervention from the government is more likely to lead to monopolies, not the opposite.

Untrue, government regulation/taxation and government monopolies themselves lead to monopolies in the market.


How on earth do you think Standard Oil got so big before it was eventually broken up by the government?

The likes of energy companies along with mineral and even bus companies are so monopolised because the state is the one which forbids any oil extraction/exploration without the state itself signing off that such a thing can be allowed. My favourite example is the bus companies, where by we only have a few bus companies in each city because the power to grant bus service contracts is with local government. If it were up to me, I would remove the need of local government to be involved in bus services so that you would be able to buy an older bus with me, and we'd be able to challenge Arriva along the local school route and charge the kids 70p each rather than £1.80.

The Thatcher Ministry was right to privatise bus companies, it just didn't go far enough so we now have a corporate monopoly system.

[buttons]

Why not?
because we're poor so how are we going to afford life long treatment without the nhs

[The Don]

Untrue, government regulation/taxation and government monopolies themselves lead to monopolies in the market.

A monopoly ran by the government is favourable to a monopoly ran by a corporation.


The likes of energy companies along with mineral and even bus companies are so monopolised because the state is the one which forbids any oil extraction/exploration without the state itself signing off that such a thing can be allowed. My favourite example is the bus companies, where by we only have a few bus companies in each city because the power to grant bus service contracts is with local government. If it were up to me, I would remove the need of local government to be involved in bus services so that you would be able to buy an older bus with me, and we'd be able to challenge Arriva along the local school route and charge the kids 70p each rather than £1.80.

The Thatcher Ministry was right to privatise bus companies, it just didn't go far enough so we now have a corporate monopoly system.

False. Maybe now, but that's not how Rockefeller created his fortune. Collusion with the (PRIVATE) railway companies allowed him to implement predatory pricing whereby his competitors ran bust (due to a lack of government interference and corporate collusion, funny that you said it wouldn't happen though...) and he simply bought up the multiple rivalling companies (which there were a ton of). But no, according to you this wouldn't possibly happen and in a free market the corporations would all lower their prices due to market pressures rather than the much more likely scenario of a few large corporations colluding together and fixing prices and buying up any smaller rivalling companies that attempt to compete with them.

[Inseriousity.]

From whose perspective, the corporations or the governments? How does it make economical sense to keep more expensive and less efficient sources of labour?

technology is highly overrated lol in terms of efficiency. it can only ever be as good as the people who use it. i know you're talking bout the future here when technology will supposedly get good enough to replace humans but i just don't see it.

[=Lizzy]

people who get drunk during the day and then shout abuse when there are small children around.i don't like these people