Socialists are stupid, Ctd

Socialists, as a sub-set of people are stupid. They always try to control and tax things that cannot be controlled and always with unintended consequences.

French socialists are especially stupid. Instead of focusing on the terrible problems that France faces Francois Hollande is instead trying to control and tax search engines:

French President Francois Hollande is considering a pushing for a new tax that would see search engines such as Google have to pay each time they use content from French media.

Hollande discussed the topic with Eric Schmidt, executive chairman of Google, during a meeting in Paris on Monday.

Hollande says the rapid expansion of the digital economy means that tax laws need to be updated to reward French media content.

Google has opposed the plan and threatened to bar French websites from its search results if the tax is imposed.

Way to go! French is already a backwater, what the little french rooster is proposing will just isolate it further.

  • In Vino Veritas

    Never truer words said. As Churchill said “Socialism, Government of the duds, by the duds, for the duds”.

    • blazer

      Churchill never said that…stop telling lies it makes you look …desperate(and a liar)

      • Travis Poulson

        You were present every time Churchill opened his gob?

        • blazer

          so it was direct anecdotal evidence…you actually heard him say that…is that your position?

          • Travis Poulson

            Can you prove he didn’t say it?

          • blazer

            I do not need to prove he didn’t ,you need to prove that he did,on the basis that you stated that he said it…of course only if you value your integrity…people will understand …either way.

          • Travis Poulson

            You said “Churchill never said that”, therefore you are obliged to prove it. Also, I never said he did say it, so it’s not up to me to prove it.

          • Travis Poulson

            Here’s one thing Churchill DID say though:

            “Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”

          • axeman

            And he also said this: ‘Ah, gentlemen, I don’t want to embark on bitter or harsh controversy, but I think the exalted ideal of the Socialists – a universal brotherhood, owning all things in common – is not always supported by the evidence of their practice. They put before us a creed of universal self-sacrifice. They preach it in the language of spite and envy, of hatred, and all uncharitableness. They tell us that we should dwell together in unity and comradeship. They are themselves split into twenty obscure factions, who hate and abuse each other more than they hate and abuse us. They wish to reconstruct the world. They begin by leaving out human nature. Consider how barren a philosophy is the creed of absolute Collectivism. Equality of reward, irrespective of service rendered! It is expressed in other ways. You know the phrase – “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” ] How nice that sounds. Let me put it another way – “You shall work according to your fancy; you shall be paid according to your appetite.” ‘

          • axeman

            Plus …
            “Self-righteousness combined with wilful blindness, and envy – essential for every socialist”
            – Winston Churchill

          • blazer

            good to see you have lifted your game.I actually believe he did say that ,and guess what! I didn’t hear him say it….did you?

      • In Vino Veritas

        1927. History is not what you say it is, blazer. Go away and study it.

        • blazer

          you have inserted the word ‘socialism’…where Government alone was part of a quote ‘attributed to Churchill,but possibly apocryphal’…—–a common trait unfortunately for your corner.

  • Brian Smaller

    The UN is pushing to tax internet traffic somehow to resdistribute Western wealth to third world shit hole dictators. While I agree socialists are stupid, they probably will succeed as left wing governments (and I include National in this), bow down and agree.

  • http://truebluenz.com/ Redbaiter

    Socialism is all about controlling the economy.

    You cannot control the economy unless you also control the people.

    That is why the ideal of socialism is anathema to anyone who considers the ideal of individual liberty as paramount.

    • blazer

      you can substitute ‘socialism’ for ‘capitalism’ in your post…same conclusion.

      • Mostly_Harmless

        The idea behind free-market capitalism is that the economy does not need to be controlled – it will look after itself. State capitalism / crony capitalism is a different story, but I don’t think that’s what you were referring to.

        • blazer

          there is no such thing as a free market…the closest- dereg of the finance sector resulted in chaos…the GFC.

          • Mostly_Harmless

            Perhaps – although the Austrian School would disagree. My point was that controlling the economy is not, for better or worse, a fundamental tenet of capitalism.

          • blazer

            ever heard of…..Monopoly…that is the utopia of capitalist endeavour!

          • Mostly_Harmless

            Monopolies are a reality of present-day capitalism. But how many defenders of capitalism see monopolies as a good thing? Very few. How many advocates of socialism advocate regulation of the economy? All, by definition. If you want to defend socialism, go ahead – but arguing that socialism and capitalism are both about controlling the economy is false equivalence.

          • blazer

            ‘a fundamental tenet of capitalism.’you are diluting your position now…your ‘how many’ defence is unacceptable.If ‘controlling ‘ the economy is not common to both socialism and capitalism(reality not theory)then one of us is badly deluded.

          • Mostly_Harmless

            I diluted my position because you made a valid point about monopolies – but I stand by my argument. Controlling the economy is not a fundamental feature of capitalism. Neither is monopolism.

            You’re mistaken about my “how many” defence. Consider the proposition “If A then B”. One case of A not being accompanied by B disproves the proposition.

          • blazer

            yes but you forgot to consider that if X =A and B is the square root of 2x.473..then that propositon is flawed.

          • Mostly_Harmless

            Good parody. Even thought it doesn’t excuse being illogical =)

          • blazer

            the only excuse for being illogical is to be human.

          • Mostly_Harmless

            As Socrates said, “Most logical is he who knows he is illogical”.

          • Mostly_Harmless

            Was this man a rampant advocate of monopolies? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdLBzfFGFQU

          • onelaw4all

            Your first nine words were correct, as for the rest:
            Nonsense.
            The GFC was a result (as they always are) of State entities, laws and regulations combining to inevitably destroy wealth.

          • blazer

            really!Lehman Bros boss Dick Fuld recieved over $500mil U.S in salary and bonus payments…all the bondholders in A.I.G got back 100cents in the $…whose wealth was actually ‘destroyed’?

          • onelaw4all

            Hard to tell, but are you trying to refute my last statement by suggesting that the payments Dick Fuld received caused the GFC?

          • blazer

            No.As for ‘hard to tell’…this sums it up…’privatise profits and socialise losses.’

          • onelaw4all

            So, again, nothing to do with a true free market and all to do with Government interference/regulation + crony capitalism/socialism (take your pick)

          • In Vino Veritas

            Lets have a wee look here shall we blazer? You blame the banks. Perhaps you should look at who repealed the Glass-Steagal Act, which led to billions of dollars of loans being made to people who couldnt afford them. In fact, the President of the time put pressure on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (Government subsidised lenders who loaned hundreds of billions of dollars) to expand mortgage loans to low income borrowers who couldnt get finance anywhere else (for a bloody good reason). Hmmm, that’d be sub prime mortgages. And presto. When times get tough, dud borrowers stop paying. Well done the left. Socialism at its best.

          • blazer

            a wee look alright!Wall St lobbied and pressed for repeal of Glass-S…as you well know a huge tranche of sub prime loans,were fraudulent from day 1 at the behest of financial brokers looking for bonus’…they of course engineered all sorts of derivitive ‘products’ to hawk securities aided and abetted by rating agency complicity.Your theory is the convenient excuse trotted out by the parasitic banksters and thieves who went unpunished.Reagan was run by Merrill Lynch,Obama by Goldman,thats the reality of U.S politics.There were directives to try and house poorer families…their gullibility made them easy targets for teaser rates,and slick salesmen.There was no direction for robo signing,and contrived liars loans.

          • In Vino Veritas

            Conspiracy theory at best, blazer. A left wing government wanted low income people to have their own houses (sound familiar?), repealed legislation that made that scenario difficult and pressured Government supported and subsidised lenders to lend to third tier and lower borrowers thereby creating a tidal wave of sub prime loans. Those are the facts blazer. You can rant and rave all you like, but causa proxima is staring you in the face.

          • blazer

            sorry my good man…ALL verifiable FACT…you have swallowed the barely plausible square off pedalled by Wall St.

          • In Vino Veritas

            Firstly blazer, I am not yours, so you can refrain from “my” anything. Secondly, give me a link me to the facts then, if you can. It appears that you have fallen for the left wing nonsense which deflects responsibility for socialist stupidity on others.

          • blazer

            Firstly VV,I do not take instruction or orders from the likes of you.Conduct your own research,that way you can avoid anything that does not correspond with your hopelessly biased and implausible excuse for unbridled greed and criminal fraud.

          • In Vino Veritas

            As always dearth of fact blazer, you therefore cannon back up your nonsense, a common theme in your posts. Typical of your ilk, since you say it is, it is so. It appears you wouldn’t know fraud if it kicked you in the teeth. Your current performance (or lack thereof), gives confidence that Whales contention that “socialists are stupid” is true.

          • blazer

            heres a couple of starters for you…On the Brink by Henry Paulson,Confidence Men by Ron Susskind.Read those ….and weep.

          • onelaw4all

            And NONE of those factors you just listed exist in a true free market.

          • blazer

            who is talking about that non existant fantasy …the ‘free market’?

          • Polish Pride

            Ummm IVV repealing the Glass- Steagal Act is deregulation and a move further toward free Market Capitalism. So put another way moving the system more toward free market capitalism and just letting it run was indeed the cause of the GFC

          • onelaw4all

            No.
            The whole reason that there was such a term coined as “sub prime” was a result of the CRA first brought in by Carter and then beefed up by Clinton.
            That was when the “bubble” really started to grow.

      • 2ndAmendment

        Capitalism is a society of individual, self-sufficient people enjoying property rights.

        Socialism is a monolithic state of dependent bludgers. Socialists don’t believe in individuals, don’t believe in rights. so don’t have (and certainly don’t deserve) any rights.

        • blazer

          you have no idea…Capitalism quite obviously relies on capital/currency/money…who gets it and why…do you really understand money supply…?

    • Dion

      I think of it the other way around. Socialists are after power. Power == control of people.

      Controlling the economy is an example of a way to control people. Controls on things like alcohol, fat taxes, banning smacking etc are others. It’s all aiming towards the same thing.

    • 2ndAmendment

      Again: socialists aren’t people. Not as we understand the term in any case.

  • JimboBug

    But if French media companies don’t want to be include in Google’s search then it is a really simply change required to the robots.txt file. The fact that they haven’t made this change makes you think that they must be happy with the number of people being directed to their pages by Google and the corresponding income from those readers.

    And so therefore the taxman is already getting his mitts on money as, if the media companies were losing money as a result of this, then they would have made the change in the robots.txt file on their servers.

    Or is this too complicated for a socialist to understand?

  • Sarrs

    Won’t google just impose a levy on all French websites that want to be included in google searches to recoup any levies imposed against them by the French government?

    Then it becomes a totally domestic issue for the French – if French companies are unhappy about the levy imposed by google then they only have their government to blame.

    • 2ndAmendment

      Naa. Google will tell the frogs to go and get fucked.

    • Dave

      Well said Saars, and yes it would fall back on the government. But Google will prob say NO (as 2A said) so they don’t set a precedent and other countries desperate for revenue follow suit, suddenly they are a government tax collector.

  • ConwayCaptain

    Frank the Dutchman is increasing the tax on Beer by 160%.
    Tax and spend.
    At Last the Bruits are fighting back and sying that they will egvto the EU Budget as it is increase, increase, increase. If the UK gets out then the EU is a stuffed Turkey

  • Sir Cullen’s Sidekick

    Good to see the socialists are wrecking France….hope the 15% stupid Kiwis among us learn some lessons….

    • Mostly_Harmless

      They won’t. They’ll blame someone else.

    • 2ndAmendment

      15% — more like 70% of nett takers and 20% who break even…

  • cows4me

    Yep the frog socialists are indeed a very rare breed. Soccer players escape their wrath simply because if they tax the arse off them they’ll all up and leave. France without soccer players would unmanageable. You would think this fact alone would be enough to rile the masses into revolt, the bastards get what they deserve and they will.

  • 2ndAmendment

    Socialists, as a sub-set of people are stupid

    But socialists aren’t a sub-set of people. People are independent, self sufficient, beings.
    Socialists are dependent members of the collective. Socialists aren’t people, and as such, don’t have “rights”.

  • Pingback: Sickness-beneficiary blogger given top job at a national newspaper – a world first? | PandoDaily

96%