Money bbc tv series Videos

+Sachi Alexander Thank you.

+KrackowKid Bach's cello suites, prelude 1.

+That1GirlBethI've spent many years of my life studying history, and I'm sick of you filthy cultural Marxists using this lame excuse to avoid an argument.

+Jimmy Mcrustle you need to learn some history .

+Jimmy Mcrustle Please clarify some of the points you made. What are these gifts you mention greeks have gifted upon themselves?What is it then that minority has to fear from majority? Contrarity to "mob rule" thinkers' claims majority of people are peaceful and benevolent. Would you think for example the US would be fighting any of its current imperialistic wars if it was left for them to decide?2/3 of the nations of Earth are some form of democracies and they tend to be the more peaceful and content ones, and also the more demcratic they are  the better they seem to fare. If you have a case to the contrary please present it. Mind you democratic means "people power" in this context and not straight out democracy in the sense of popular vote on  subjects. If it were done more the World would undoubtedly be in even better shape. In history rule has mostly been tyrannical, but what has it got to do with anything? Are you saying things were better then?I'm sorry I don't speak cryptogram. What's ESL and what has it got to do with anything. Of course there are problems associated with democracy as well as no form of government is perfect, but it still is the least problematic of the ones yet discovered. How is the western worlds democraphic problem fail of the democracy? A dictator would impose a quota on children or something silly like that? You're just naming bunch of problems and pretending they have something to do with the form of rule. Atleast you aren't being confusing, only a little confused perhps.Where did you get an idea Finland is protected by anyone? We stand alone and there is absolutely no one coming to the rescue if Russia decides to invade. Yes there is solidarity among mostly other European countries, but I don't see how that is a fail of democracy. On the contrary, it's because of democracy and the mindset of the people that it is as it stands, but that's only a mental cruch. Finlands fiscal problems lie in it's massive bureocracy, which the finns undoubtedly would cut back on if left for them to decide. Do you think the US is doing better fiscally with somewhere around 100% more total debt to GDP than Finland?both of these countries have their fiscal policies blown apart because of the undemocratic aspects of their government. Do you think the US needs or it's citizens want its massive army and it's unending wars? This is again one thing where more democracy would lead to better results.You are just naming a bunch of problems, but aren't really substantiating them with anything or how they tie to the subject. If you want to be taken seriously you have to do better than recite some age old, or new one at that, unfounded rhetoric.I don't claim people rule is some sort of divine, infallible way of decision making, but people tend to know what's best for them better than most hungry for power minorities, or they may know better, but won't implement them, because it's not their life on the line. Undoubtedly there are better ones still to come. It's just that they haven't been invented yet, much less tried and tested.PS. Dig deeper and you'll realize where US's schooling problems actually stem from. Keep peeling those layers, as they aren't the first, or the second most obvious ones.

+Kucas MukasThough there may be singular cases to the contrary, the danger of people voting themselves gifts into the collapse of a democracy is very real. Take Greece as an excellent example. Greece is falling apart, and the people are rioting in the street demanding the gifts that they voted themselves.I find it puzzling that you would say a minority in democracy does not need to fear tyranny of the majority. The tyranny of the majority is a common problem all Democratic governments have faced, and typically deal with through checks and balances like super majorities, and constitutions.Wait, not I'm very confused? The majority of the world is ruled by democracy? Last I checked, the majority of the world was ruled by Tyrants, and Oligarchies. I believe that the most common form of government in history has been tyrannies, with rare and short respites of freedom, and democracy.Ahh, so you're finnish. That explains why you don't make sense. ESL and all that. Free education has not always been a success, and illiteracy is still rampant in some countries like America, although that could be a racial issue rather than a issue with free education.Primarily, many European countries have been able to afford very expensive gifts to their citizens because of high taxes, coupled with no need for military spending, due to the protection of certain foreign powers. Typically that only works for smaller more homogeneous  countries like Finland.Finland itself, along with much of Europe is already feeling the burden of their Socialist policies. They are essentially, a giant pyramid scheme. As birth rates fall in Europe, there will be a labour shortage, that will prevent the state from being able to support a larger retired elderly population. The solution to this has been radical immigration, which is destroying Europe, and erasing ethnic groups.While sustainable on a small scale, as socialism increases economic and political stability will continue to grow more strenuous. Europe hasn't exactly been doing very well lately.

+Jimmy Mcrustle You mean Lord Alexander Fraser Tytler?  You'd think a Lord of strict class society would praise the virtues of democratic rule. D'oh! The swiss actually recently voted against wage limits, so such fears are not only unfounded, but been proven wrong. It's the rule of the few (or minority in general) that we (the majority) should fear. Minority has no reason to fear the majority, but it does because of fear of loosing power.These warnings of "mob rule" have infact rung through out the centuries, yet they have never realized. Practically the whole world is happily under the rule of one or the other form of democracy. Why is it that those in power preach the wisdom behind keeping that power? I think the answer is quite straight forward and obvious.There is certain virtue in bookknowledge, but much more so in actually understanding the intricasies behind the obvious and how they weave the fabric of current (and past) affairs.Where do you come up with these ideas? Free education and free healthcare has been a raving success for a century at the least. That's how we have eradicated diseases and illiteracy. We even pay students here in Finland and it has no negative impacts on society, and we have guaranteed pension as well as wellfare if one isn't capable of sustaining one self. Should these things be taken away just because they are freely given even when they would impact the society negatively? If so then why?

+Kucas MukasI actually agree with you. The purpose of government is to protect the consumer from damaging corporate policies, and to enforce contracts between individuals and companies.I'm not advocating anarchy, I simply advocate for freedom of choice to buy and sell and employ people, as long as you are not harming anyone else.Of course, you are correct, communism has never been successfully implemented, because it's impossible to go past the step of Socialism. Socialism, however, has tended to harm the economy. The danger of a democracy was clearly warned by Alexander Fraser Tytler:"A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."This is the inherent danger of socialism. The people are simply voting for who will give them the most gifts. Look at socialist politicians, what do they promise? Free education, free healthcare, free whatever people want.Socialism is itself a corrupt institution, and in my opinion is a stage of degeneration towards a dictatorship from democracy.

+Jimmy McrustleOf course I would make profit and it's good. I just wouldn't make it at any cost possible. Capitalist "system" doesn't have those kinds of values. The most ruthless takes the prize. That's why we need those checks which demcracy provides so well. The real winner here is democracy.Would you say anarchism is good? That's your unbounded freemarket capitalism and it'd fail just as bad as any other utopian system. And for your information communism hasn't been implemented anywhere, just socialism, and socialist states are regarded as one of the most successful kind of (free)market democracies around. Even the US is turning around. It's the mix and mash that works, and actually the most succesful ones tend to be the most demcratic ones. Of course the many voices of the corporations would have you believe it's all about Capitalism (with the motivation of profiteering), but it's not. It's about the people. They create all the new inventions, products and well being we enjoy today.German jews weren't German? I guess they were of the Jew nation then. Now that's just sad.

+Kucas MukasMaking profit is actually good. If you could make more money, would you turn it down? Profit adds an incentive for economic growth, and productivity.Of course, there have to be checks and balances.Also, it's worth pointing out that Germany did not kill its own. The Jews were not German, they were Jews.

+Jimmy Mcrustle Capitalist nation killing its own? Nazi Germany comes to mind. You seem to be mixing capitalist for democracy. There is nothing inherently benevolent about capitalism, on the contrary, it needs the checks and bounds provided by democracy just as much as any other regime not to become ruthlessly abusive. I'm not collectivist any way, shape or form, but I'm also not deluding myself with the ways of making profit.

+Haskimir ScrewsurnamesWell I sympathize with your blind idealism, your communist utopia would not work. Power and money are both corrupting forces, and a government with so much power would naturally corrupt its officials. If the ministers are elected by the people, and can make any laws, then you have a republican democracy, and the people would likely vote themselves the rights to property and liberties, as has happened in historical cases.Additionally, the task of managing a large economy from a centralized government is too complex a task. Monolithic structures of that scale are impractical and inefficient.Furthermore, if the state controls all profits, people are disincentivized  to work. Multiple studies have shown that if someone does not benefit from their work, then they are less likely to work as hard. In a communist society, if you work harder than your neighbor, and make more, everything you make is then taken away, and equally distributed according to need. This causes people to work less, and creates inefficiency, and eventual collapse.Finally, equality and liberty cannot co-exist. In a communist society, you cannot be free to work for yourself, to buy for yourself, to sell for yourself, or do anything. It is a form of government where the individual loses his rights. The worker enjoys far more rights under Capitalism than under Communism.Every man is entitled to their right of Life, Liberty, and Property. Communism denies at least two, and often all three of those things.Finally, I would like to point out:COMMUNISM HAS NEVER WORKED IN ALL OF HISTORY AND THERE IS NO PROOF IT WILL EVER WORK.

+Jimmy Mcrustle Socialism or Communism would work as a type of governance, all the money in a country would be centralised to that government, with a complete communist state the government would own every business and therefore gain all of the profits of those businesses, this means that the government could effectively run their state and distribute welfare to those who need it and actually be able to fund every department, everyone would work for the state and contribute to the community of the country and push it into a golden era, as for liberalism, there might be some problems with men in power trying to make a totalitarian state, but that could easily be solved by having an e-democracy where ministers could put forward their ideas and everyone in the country could vote for or against that idea, but thanks to the greediness and dominating nature of humans this would never happen unless someone seized power via a revolution. The point I'm getting at is that both systems can work, but Communism creates a more equal society (if enacted and enforced properly), but thanks to corporate greed, this will never happen because the rich will always be able to exert more power over the world because most politicians are corruptible and can be bribed, that is until the capitalist world falls because of the overuse of resources and greediness

+MaxR843Morality doesn't exist outside of being a social construct, you silly Marxist. I think something far more morally wrong than "income inequality", is depriving anyone of their fundamental rights to life, liberty, and property.Let's consider this boogeyman, the 1%. Did you know, that one in eight people spends at least one year in the 1%? One in five people spend at least one year of their lives in the 2%. All you need to do to become a member of the one percent, is make around $340,000. That’s not some unachievable goal.//www.businessinsider.com/the-income-you-need-to-be-in-the-1-2014-5?op=1In fact, in that article, they prove that you can become a member of the 1% without being born into it. You are factually wrong.So capitalism is unsustainable, but it works? That’s a contradictory statement. Yes, it is enough for a system to just work. However, I would like to point out that COMMUNISM DOES NOT WORK AND HAS NEVER WORKED IN HUMAN HISTORY.Capitalism has made workers live far better lives than any communist country has ever provided in human history. In fact, the best lives that the lower classes have ever lived have been under capitalist economies.The free market, or capitalism as you call it, simply means that people are free to own property, and buy and sell it as they see fit. Not only is communism a juvenile fantasy, but by necessity it cannot exist in a free society because its primary aim is to remove all freedom to own, buy, and sell property.You’re grasping at straws. A free market economy allows the most efficient distribution of scarce resources, because they are distributed based on supply and demand. It encourages efficiency, as inefficient companies go out of business. It encourages healthy life decisions, because the lazy, the drug addicts, and the incompetent are forced to become better to increase their own value in the economy.Communism remains a juvenile fantasy, based on the errant belief that classes are static, and that people are not inherently concerned primarily with their own self interest. Even if you take away and equally distribute all property, someone will still steal from his neighbor, or work harder than him and make more, and the cycle that has driven human life since its inception will continue.

+Jimmy Mcrustle It's morally wrong for 50M people who have to rely on government assistance for their next meal when there's 500 billionaires living excessively extravagant lives. It's econmically unsustainable, 1% own 40% of wealth today, so what in 20 years .1% suppose to own 80%? You think that is ok? It's already impossible to be the 1% in less you're born into it. It's works, yes. A lot of systems work. But is that enough for them to just work? Can they not work well? And can it not work well for the majority? Of course capitalism has made countless lives better, other systems have made lives better too. But you cannot pretend capitalism does not destory lives as well. Marxism is classless.What it will come down to is  All well-paid positions are being dolled out to the privileged. Old technologies are being rebranded as new as people who own companies that do research can't comprehend what their employees are doing. Soon, the employees won't be able to comprehend what those in the generation before them did. So, technology will begin to move backwards. 200 years from now, people will have shorter life-spans, computers will be slower, etc. The reason? Those with the capacity to create don't have access to any resources anymore, and have no way to ever actualize. And the extremely rich who have access to all the resources have no capacity to create. As a result, we're entering a new dark age. If I had a fraction of a fraction of what some of these people have, I could create new technologies and new industries. I never will, because I'll never be rich. And those who are rich won't create such things anymore despite having the resources, because they lack the personal capacity to do so. Those who are not employed in major research and development are becoming more skilled than those who are employed. Also, they have no interest in sharing their ideas or creations because they know the rich will just take them without paying (not like the poor can afford a lawyer to prosecute). So, at best, this will result in technology moving backwards

+MaxR843Why is it morally wrong? Why is it unsustainable? It has been working very well for hundreds upon hundreds of years. Throughout all of human history, wealth has been concentrated heavily in the hands of a few. In fact, in the modern era, wealth is much more equally distributed than ever before, as is political power. You're solving a problem that doesn't exist, and in the worst possible manner. I have thousands of examples of capitalism making lives better, but there is not a single example of Marxism being either sustainable, or improving the living conditions of the lower class.

+Jimmy Mcrustle The 1% own 40% of the wealth in my country, how long do you think this can continue, at this rate? It's not sustainable. Econmically, morally wrong. Why should the government only benefit the ruling class?

+Jimmy Mcrustle It's unfair to Marx, he is not directly responsible. These things occured after his death. That's like holding mikhail kalashnikov responsible for all the deaths of ak47's...Capitalist are constantly profitting off of war, which is morally worse than trying to achieve communism, but all that was socialism if you want to be technical.. Someone is profitting off of others bloodshed, guns, missles, bombs, cars, bullets, drugs, etc."The communist thinks that classes are a permanent position"The low class buying into the illusion that they won't be low class forever. If you were born low class there's a high chance you will stay low class. Same for high class.Do you really think capitalism is sustainable enough to last forever? Sell everything on earth, pay to live though you didn't get a choice in your birth, pollute the earth etc..I think communism and capitalism could exist together though.

+MaxR843What about the death and bloodshed under communism? Communism has been responsible for more death and bloodshed than capitalism by orders of magnitude.Please, feel free to give an instance when a capitalist nation killed millions of its own people in a brutal manner, as the communists did in China, or in Russia, or in Vietnam, or Korea, or in many other communist countries.What class do I find myself in? This is exactly the retardation of the communist. The communist thinks that classes are a permanent position. Right now, I'm in the lower class. When I was young, I was also in the lower class, but I moved to the upper class, then back down to middle, and all around. Class changes throughout a person's life. Most of the rich were not rich when they were young.Of course no state has ever achieved communism, because the ideal of communism is completely impossible. Do you really think people will just give up power, and all live in harmony once we simply kill all the rich people, and get rid of private property? Of course not. Only the most naive of people could consider such a philosophy plausible. People are naturally greedy, and will always want more power, and wealth.

+Jimmy Mcrustle What about the death and bloodshed under capitalism? All the profit off war? What class do you find yourself in? You know no state has ever achieved communism?

The simply superb Simply Red, so good to see them back and performing better than ever, huge admiration for Mick Hucknall ........

One of my favourite bands.Have got dvd with concert in Cuba-CUBA-Simply Super Hit!

Brilliant. Great musicians and vocals 1, miming and auto-tuned puppets 0.

AMO ESTE TEMA!!!!!!!!!!!! Y MICK SOS MAS QUE MI IDOLO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How is it even possible to sound this good? Simply amazing....

great band and songs, Mick's voice is better than ever!

Super !! xxxforever !!

yessssss=)))

What a voice! 

Oh no I get all that. My issue lays more with his half harted joke he attempted.  It just seemed that when he went on and on about marrying Blanche that he was obviously not committed.  In the book he was really committed to the "joke" and even cruel in his execution until the moment he realized to his "horror" that he had gone too far.  Then after when he looked into her eyes and was holding her he was mad with passion. I had imagined him shaking with passion as it was consuming him, hence the Say my Name line.  I didn't pick up any of that all consuming panic driven passion from him.  It was very underplayed.  Add to that his appearance, in the book he was rather unattractive physically as was Jane.  I don't think anyone will ever make a movie /show displaying that so I'll have to get over that LOL

+Ashley Williams (Ash)Thanks for replying. I love discussing my favourite book! I agree somewhat with your criticisms of Toby Stephens' portrayal, although I appreciate the fact that he doesn't ham it up and, instead, gives a human and believable performance. Stephens provides the right amount of "gruffness" in Episode one, but, by this stage of the story, he has considerably softened towards Jane (being madly in love with her, of course!). From chapter 15: "His deportment had now for some weeks been more uniform towards me than at the first. I never seemed in his way; he did not take fits of chilling hauteur: when he met me unexpectedly, the encounter seemed welcome; he had always a word and sometimes a smile for me: when summoned by formal invitation to his presence, I was honoured by a cordiality of reception that made me feel I really possessed the power to amuse him, and that these evening conferences were sought as much for his pleasure as for my benefit." Jane speaks about him "talk[ing] with relish", "ease of his manner", "friendly frankness", and "great kindness to me". Don't forget that, just the night before the scene in the clip, Rochester and Jane had shared an emotional intimacy - the whole Gypsy thing, and the attack on Richard Mason. Lastly, I would add Mrs Fairfax's endorsement that Rochester is always "talented and lively in society". I'm not arguing against the fact that Rochester can be cruel and sardonic, but it could be very easy for an actor to overdo those qualities (and give a sort of pantomime turn). Rochester is a good bloke at heart!

Jane is quite what I imagined reading through it. But Rochester is all wrong. Not only the casting but his whole mannerisms are not nearly as gruff as in the book and doesn't give as stark a change in comparison as he softens.  All in all I just really didn't care for it. I could clarify more if I had my copy in front of me.

+Ashley Williams (Ash) I agree that Rochester's final words of "Don't go, Jane - what will I do without your help?" are a departure from the book (although a fair summation of how Rochester feels at that point, but doesn't voice), but the rest of the scene is the book come to life! The delightful playfulness is captured exquisitely. Can I ask why you think the way you do?

+Bea A i can't agree more good madame.. this version are mesmerize me.

The 2011 version was dry in general. Good actors but no chemistry. It was not bad just because is hard to mess up Jane Eyre but it lacked the passion.

+Bea A Agree! The scene in this version is light and playful - as it was in the book. The same scene in 2011 was as dry as dust!

+Bea A agree one million gzillion percent

YES! exactly, they were so well casted and were so in character that I truly forgot it was a performance while I saw it. No other adaptation in my opinion, has done this. I am glad you enjoyed it as well!  

+Bea A I haven't seen the 2011 version yet, but this one really touched my heart; I believe it's a challenge to play such caracthers - and both actors did an amazing work. You have the strange feeling that they are for real, not just a performance.

+pearlearring17 I beg leave to disagree, but I enjoyed your reference to The Princess Bride. :)

Agree!!

+pearlearring17 haha! love your princess bride reference.

No not true at all, Keynes was very very smart (have you read a Treatise on Probability? - man he had some intellect! Awesome stuff!) You don't have to be a lefty to be a Keynesian: 'we are all Keynesians now' comes from the right....

+Mike Berg NZ represent!

So, you still think big international government will work? Wouldn't the world be better off without these institutions at all?