Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Uk Debate Mk 2, the UK's liveliest political and social debate site.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Corbyn-economics?
Topic Started: Sep 7 2015, 07:27 AM (797 Views)
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Somebody has to kick this off as it looks like it could become official Labour policy.

Two things; higher tax rates and The People's QE.

The 50P or higher appeals to the Spite and Envy Brigade, but they present no evidence of how such will bring sustainable increases in revenues.
Quote:
 
Consider the early 1970s, I suggested, when Labour introduced its venal 83pc top rate of income tax, with an additional 15pc surcharge in some cases. The result was Britain’s “economic Suez” in 1976, when our government ended up insolvent, going “cap-in-hand” for a bail-out to the International Monetary Fund.
I cited contemporary France, where President Hollande’s gallery-pleasing 75pc tax rate has proved a disaster, and where heavy state bureaucracy and taxation has seen growth average just 0.2pc over the past five years.



The People's QE

Quote:
 
Corbyn’s new policy, “people’s quantitative easing”, the transmogrification of an emergency bank liquidity measure into a money-printing free-for-all, is a dangerous nonsense.
Having said that, QE as it currently stands, overused on a grotesque scale, to keep government borrowing costs artificially low, while pumping up share prices and flattering bank balance sheets, is also a dangerous nonsense.
The only difference is that we are retaining the pretence, for now, that the government paper that the Bank of England has bought will ultimately be repaid.
Ending that, and monetising deficit spending directly à la Corbyn, would send sovereign debt markets haywire, as anyone with even the remotest understanding of economics will instantly grasp.


LINK

Would those that support the above policies care to attempt to justify them and show how such would be beneficial to the vast majority of UK citizens?



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Replies:
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Sep 8 2015, 03:55 PM
Steve K
Sep 8 2015, 09:58 AM
Affa
Sep 7 2015, 10:21 PM
Read post 24 again .......... which was not a direct reference to QE, but you knew that when posting, or should have. . .
Well I can see now you meant it that way but post 24 was quoting a point made about QE so I took the obvious inference that you were using SME's as a viewpoint about that. So no I don't see I should have

Oh dear "SME" what's that?

He said it first Posted Image

Small or Medium Enterprise (SME) aka as excessive receiver of gov and EU grants



(any chance you could prune back that sig please, it gets splatted all over the next post)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
gee4444
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
RJD
Sep 8 2015, 03:54 PM
gee4444
Sep 7 2015, 05:11 PM
ACH1967
Sep 7 2015, 02:30 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
QE wasn't used to bail out the banks. The tax payers did with subsequent increase in State/Public debt.

The QE process and the downfalls of QE are the same regardless of the recipients of the new magicked up currency. Obviously pro Capitalist right wing fantasists who are dependent on stock markets will tell you otherwise to scare you. They ONLY whine when free money is to be used in the way Corbyn suggests. Such an idea really does get under their skin - free money is historically speaking the domain of the pampered minority and using it to improve the lives of the masses disgusts them.
You know that is not true. The two processes are not the same. The similarity stops with the words QE. Anyway there is no reason that we could not take the creation of debt out of the hands of the Banks and institute full reserve rather than fractional Banking. The following is worthy of your study:
TOWARDS A TWENTY-­‐FIRST CENTURY BANKING AND MONETARY SYSTEM SUBMISSION TO THE INDEPENDENT COMMISSION ON BANKING
by Ben Dyson, Tony Greenham, Josh Ryan-­‐Collins and Richard A. Werner
Joint submission by the Centre for Banking, Finance and Sustainable Development University of Southampton, School of Management
I know the QE process is identical. The only difference is the proposed recipients.

I'd love a banking system based on full reserves but the propiertors of this system/game will not give it up. Why would they cut their own throats and abandon a system which enriches them and controls us? Change would have to be forced and I don't believe you believe in such measures.
Edited by gee4444, Sep 8 2015, 08:31 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
gee4444
Sep 8 2015, 08:30 PM
RJD
Sep 8 2015, 03:54 PM
gee4444
Sep 7 2015, 05:11 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
You know that is not true. The two processes are not the same. The similarity stops with the words QE. Anyway there is no reason that we could not take the creation of debt out of the hands of the Banks and institute full reserve rather than fractional Banking. The following is worthy of your study:
TOWARDS A TWENTY-­‐FIRST CENTURY BANKING AND MONETARY SYSTEM SUBMISSION TO THE INDEPENDENT COMMISSION ON BANKING
by Ben Dyson, Tony Greenham, Josh Ryan-­‐Collins and Richard A. Werner
Joint submission by the Centre for Banking, Finance and Sustainable Development University of Southampton, School of Management
I know the QE process is identical. The only difference is the proposed recipients.

I'd love a banking system based on full reserves but the propiertors of this system/game will not give it up. Why would they cut their own throats and abandon a system which enriches them and controls us? Change would have to be forced and I don't believe you believe in such measures.
You are wrong GE4444, I believe that the State should regulate Capitalism to the benefit of the majority and if "full reserve Banking" reduces risks in the system then why not. I am just totally against Socialism (it has failed again and again and again) and any system that further empowers Politicians. You know I am for regulated Capitalism and sound money, so please do not cast aspersions in an attempt to bolster your position. By the way you have failed to show that Peoples QE is the same as that recently practised by the BofE (Bank of England). I think you will acknowledge that you claiming such does not stand as proof.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pro Veritas
Upstanding Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Sep 7 2015, 08:22 PM
They report the market, the don't control it.
Naive thinking at best.

Head in the sand thinking at worst.


The Market responds to impressions of The Market.

So reporting on the The market does indeed exert a significant degree of control over The Market.

And all of this assume The Market is somehow independent of human agencies, it isn't. It is 100% controlled by them.

Identifying exactly who controls it, and why, is key to ever having an economy that serves the interests of the many, rather than the few.

Rating Agencies being made illegal would be a big step forward.

All The Best
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Pro Veritas
Sep 9 2015, 09:32 AM
Steve K
Sep 7 2015, 08:22 PM
They report the market, the don't control it.
Naive thinking at best.

Head in the sand thinking at worst.


The Market responds to impressions of The Market.

So reporting on the The market does indeed exert a significant degree of control over The Market.

And all of this assume The Market is somehow independent of human agencies, it isn't. It is 100% controlled by them.

Identifying exactly who controls it, and why, is key to ever having an economy that serves the interests of the many, rather than the few.

Rating Agencies being made illegal would be a big step forward.

All The Best
Ratings Agencies made illegal whatever next? Do not you would approve the banning of certain TV programs due to their bad taste? Nobody has to take any notice of anything any Ratings Agency says and by the same token I am free to turn off my TV or switch channels is a I find a program to be in poor taste.

I think you will find a fatal flaw in the thinking:

"The market responds to the market" (No definitions here of market or responses)

Therefore reporting on The Market etc.

That is a post hoc propter quo fallacy.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pro Veritas
Upstanding Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Sep 9 2015, 10:24 AM
Nobody has to take any notice of anything any Ratings Agency says
But they do, and the agencies have little to no oversight or accountability.

And what they say affects the lives of Millions of people every day.

You may think it OK to have such power vested with such an unaccountable minority, but I don't.

Remember is was Rating Agencies giving what later turned out to be "junk bonds" 5 star ratings that kicked off the whole economic crisis in the first place.

The Rating Agencies are never held to account when they get it wrong; and because of that they have no incentive to improve their forecasting.

All The Best
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
gee4444
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
RJD
Sep 9 2015, 07:32 AM
gee4444
Sep 8 2015, 08:30 PM
RJD
Sep 8 2015, 03:54 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
I know the QE process is identical. The only difference is the proposed recipients.

I'd love a banking system based on full reserves but the propiertors of this system/game will not give it up. Why would they cut their own throats and abandon a system which enriches them and controls us? Change would have to be forced and I don't believe you believe in such measures.
You are wrong GE4444, I believe that the State should regulate Capitalism to the benefit of the majority and if "full reserve Banking" reduces risks in the system then why not. I am just totally against Socialism (it has failed again and again and again) and any system that further empowers Politicians. You know I am for regulated Capitalism and sound money, so please do not cast aspersions in an attempt to bolster your position. By the way you have failed to show that Peoples QE is the same as that recently practised by the BofE (Bank of England). I think you will acknowledge that you claiming such does not stand as proof.

Because full reserve banking removes the ability to create money from nothing - the fundamental process they created to ensure a free and easy life for the minority at the expense of the majority. I repeat, I'd like it too but you are living in a dream if you expect it to happen and are totally deluded if you expect the minority to agree to implement it.

Back to your rhetoric that Socialism always failed even though in actual fact it's never even been attempted. I really can't be arsed discussing that lie again.

As a long time supporter of all things Capitalist on this forum I would expect you to embrace fractional reserve banking as one of your ideals. I'm surprised at your request for full reserve banking in so much as it's inconsistent with the majority of your views.

The process of QE is no different (that's a fact, not a claim), only the recipients have changed. Given the only factor that's changed is the target of the magic money it can only be concludedthat's the reason for your sudden outbursts claiming QE is abhorent. Why did you not show such disgust during the first tranch of QE that was used to pump up stocks and shares and provide free money for banks to invest?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
gee4444
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
RJD: Nobody has to take any notice of anything any Ratings Agency says and by the same token I am free to turn off my TV or switch channels is a I find a program to be in poor taste.


Wrong.

You should read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Three_%28credit_rating_agencies%29

and the first paragraph of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_rating_agencies_and_the_subprime_crisis

Now it could be suggested the ratings agencies were simply incompetent and applied the wrong ratings to the junk securities. More likely, they colluded with certain banks to pass the junk from their books to others (given these certain banks were shorting these securities it's a more likely scenario) by implementing false ratings.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
Pro Veritas
Sep 9 2015, 11:08 AM
RJD
Sep 9 2015, 10:24 AM
Nobody has to take any notice of anything any Ratings Agency says
But they do, and the agencies have little to no oversight or accountability.

And what they say affects the lives of Millions of people every day.

You may think it OK to have such power vested with such an unaccountable minority, but I don't.

Remember is was Rating Agencies giving what later turned out to be "junk bonds" 5 star ratings that kicked off the whole economic crisis in the first place.

The Rating Agencies are never held to account when they get it wrong; and because of that they have no incentive to improve their forecasting.

All The Best
You make an excellent point.

I have never heard of regulation of ratings agencies, if Steve is reading this and knows of any kind of reg I'm all ears.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Pro Veritas
Sep 9 2015, 11:08 AM
RJD
Sep 9 2015, 10:24 AM
Nobody has to take any notice of anything any Ratings Agency says
But they do, and the agencies have little to no oversight or accountability.

And what they say affects the lives of Millions of people every day.

You may think it OK to have such power vested with such an unaccountable minority, but I don't.

Remember is was Rating Agencies giving what later turned out to be "junk bonds" 5 star ratings that kicked off the whole economic crisis in the first place.

The Rating Agencies are never held to account when they get it wrong; and because of that they have no incentive to improve their forecasting.

All The Best
If people take notice then they must have trust in their evaluations, but nobody is forced to.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
GE4444: Because full reserve banking removes the ability to create money from nothing - the fundamental process they created to ensure a free and easy life for the minority at the expense of the majority. I repeat, I'd like it too but you are living in a dream if you expect it to happen and are totally deluded if you expect the minority to agree to implement it.

Not true, it removes it from the private Banking Sector. Again it not from nothing but from the believed promise that the recipient of the loan will honour the debt. Same way we believe that the State will honour what it says on it's Bonds.

GE4444: Back to your rhetoric that Socialism always failed even though in actual fact it's never even been attempted. I really can't be arsed discussing that lie again.

Of course you cannot as you have thus far provided no examples. How can you every attempt thus far has been labelled by you as not being based on Socialist principles. For you that is a convenient win win argument. Well done GE4444.

GE4444: As a long time supporter of all things Capitalist on this forum I would expect you to embrace fractional reserve banking as one of your ideals. I'm surprised at your request for full reserve banking in so much as it's inconsistent with the majority of your views.

Again you are wrong. Many capitalists in fact the vast majority believe that it is best regulated and many of these support the idea of full reserve Banking. Such a change would not hinder Banks if they so wished still playing the Roulette wheels. That said I see no reason in placing trust with Politicians in respect to the amount of money created at any tiime, in fact I would want such as far away from Socialist Politicians as possible.

GE4444: The process of QE is no different (that's a fact, not a claim), only the recipients have changed. Given the only factor that's changed is the target of the magic money it can only be concludedthat's the reason for your sudden outbursts claiming QE is abhorent. Why did you not show such disgust during the first tranch of QE that was used to pump up stocks and shares and provide free money for banks to invest?

Nothing sudden here as I have never been a supporter of QE except in your imagination. I am also no great fan of PFI or the State borrowing to finance current consumption which I and many many others consider highly immoral. I believe in sound money and a sensibly regulated capitalist economy. I would not give Socialism house room.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
gee4444
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Of course it removes it from the private banking sector as that's where it exists. I'm not supporting transferal of such functions to the state, rather, their complete abolishment.

Money is created from nothing without any effort when a bank issues a loan/mortgage etc. Such is only possible within fractional reserve banking. Real money/value/wealth is created by those who have to perform real work to repay this loan. The system is actually quite impressive in it's functionality but not as impressive as the brainwashing/designed ignorance of the masses to accept it. To claim the worth is implicit in the promise to repay (and worse suggesting it's the same as state borrowing - whose promise is based upon the ability to collect taxes) misses the key issue that it's a system utilised by the few (plutocrats probably) to live a work free life of opulence at the expense of the masses.

Socialism hasn't been allowed a chance to discover if it would work or not. I'm inclined to believe it probably would predominantly because the pampered parasitical few with the most to gain from their Capitalist system engage all possible weapons to undermine any attempts before they have a chance. Post war Eastern Europe and the USSR were not Socialist states regardless of your personal opinion otherwise.

I doubt most capitalist support full reserve banking. It would restric growth that is in the main based on debt. That would undermine the whole current Western economies. I'm afraid we're too far down the rabbit hole to turn back and it will only end when the current financial system collapses on itself - in my opinion.

I accept you have previously stated you are not a supporter of QE - it's very rare we agree on anything so I'll take this opportunity to highlight it! My gripe is your lack of hostility towards it until it was suggested that the resultant magicked up money would be used to help the masses. Stating now that such a policy is ludicrous to attack Corbyn and Sociliast principles only serves to highlight your personal right wing bias rather than a true concern for the financial implications.
Edited by gee4444, Sep 9 2015, 04:08 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
Socialism wasn't strong enough to work, fact is that the socialists were beaten on the battleground and later on, during the years of watered down right wing social democracy.. socialists were beaten ideologically. They were beaten because they only existed to be usdd as a tool, a tool to prevent tge masses from revolting.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
gee4444
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Wellington and other Bourgeoisie/absolute monarchist states seriously halted any chance of Socialism/meritocracy in Europe. The masses embraced Capitalist principles on the basis that, individually speaking, they did provide improvements in terms of possessions/materialism. I suppose in the short term this can be considered advancement. I'm not sure Socialism was used as a tool to control the masses but it's certainly a point worthy of investigation.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
I agree with you on most of that.

Btw I meant right wing social democracy was used as a tool, not ocialists who stuck by the orig. def.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked
Sep 9 2015, 04:54 PM
Socialism wasn't strong enough to work, fact is that the socialists were beaten on the battleground and later on, during the years of watered down right wing social democracy.. socialists were beaten ideologically. They were beaten because they only existed to be usdd as a tool, a tool to prevent tge masses from revolting.

By and large Socialism has won

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/socialism

Quote:
 
A political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.


key words: or regulated by . Many people carefully leave that out when they describe what they want socialism to be.

Communism of course lost

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/communism

Quote:
 
A theory or system of social organization in which all property is owned by the community and each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
gee4444
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
To skwirked: I see. Apologies for the misunderstanding.
Edited by gee4444, Sep 9 2015, 09:48 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
gee4444
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Deregulation is more popular today than at any time since WW2. As for ownership, production, distribution and exchange - you're not claiming they're controlled by the community are you?

Therefore today's Western society is far from Socialist. It's best described as corporate fascism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
Nah it's just Capitalism.

It's not socialism or corporate fascism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
gee4444
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Well, while corporations dictate to governments I'll stick to corporate fascism. We've moved on from Capitalism. In my opinion.
Edited by gee4444, Sep 9 2015, 09:57 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
gee4444
Sep 9 2015, 09:48 PM
Deregulation is more popular today than at any time since WW2. As for ownership, production, distribution and exchange - you're not claiming they're controlled by the community are you?

Therefore today's Western society is far from Socialist. It's best described as corporate fascism.
So take a typical large scale multi national company: Tesco

It is regulated on products it can sell, quality of such products, pricing it can charge, where it can build its shops and warehouses, appearance of such, hours they can be open, hours of work for employees, age/gender/orientation/race of employees, severance payments for employees, working conditions for employees, ability to become a dominant supplier or buyer of goods and services, whether it can give away plastic bags, size of car parks, provision of maternity pay, provision of sick pay, contributions it must make to pension schemes etc etc etc

And you are saying they are not really regulated. I think you need to think that out again.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Sep 9 2015, 09:39 PM
skwirked
Sep 9 2015, 04:54 PM
Socialism wasn't strong enough to work, fact is that the socialists were beaten on the battleground and later on, during the years of watered down right wing social democracy.. socialists were beaten ideologically. They were beaten because they only existed to be usdd as a tool, a tool to prevent tge masses from revolting.

By and large Socialism has won

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/socialism

Quote:
 
A political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.


key words: or regulated by . Many people carefully leave that out when they describe what they want socialism to be.

Communism of course lost

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/communism

Quote:
 
A theory or system of social organization in which all property is owned by the community and each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs
A little surprised at this one Steve

The means of production aren't owned by the community and those that are'publicly' owned, are run by politicians who aren't fully accountable and subject to recall.

We live in a capitalist democracy, it may be many things but it's certainly not socialist.

Perhaps social-democratic (in the same way that the Right-wing so ial democrats, the German SPD are/were) but not socialist).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked
Sep 9 2015, 09:58 PM
Steve K
Sep 9 2015, 09:39 PM
skwirked
Sep 9 2015, 04:54 PM
Socialism wasn't strong enough to work, fact is that the socialists were beaten on the battleground and later on, during the years of watered down right wing social democracy.. socialists were beaten ideologically. They were beaten because they only existed to be usdd as a tool, a tool to prevent tge masses from revolting.

By and large Socialism has won

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/socialism

Quote:
 
A political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.


key words: or regulated by . Many people carefully leave that out when they describe what they want socialism to be.

Communism of course lost

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/communism

Quote:
 
A theory or system of social organization in which all property is owned by the community and each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs
A little surprised at this one Steve

The means of production aren't owned by the community and those that are'publicly' owned, are run by politicians who aren't fully accountable and subject to recall.

We live in a capitalist democracy, it may be many things but it's certainly not socialist.

Perhaps social-democratic (in the same way that the Right-wing so ial democrats, the German SPD are/were) but not socialist).
As i said above, a lot of people leave out the words or regulated by when discussing socialism

Why you do that I could make guesses about but I'd suggest it's better that you explain why.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
gee4444
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Steve K
Sep 9 2015, 09:57 PM
gee4444
Sep 9 2015, 09:48 PM
Deregulation is more popular today than at any time since WW2. As for ownership, production, distribution and exchange - you're not claiming they're controlled by the community are you?

Therefore today's Western society is far from Socialist. It's best described as corporate fascism.
So take a typical large scale multi national company: Tesco

It is regulated on products it can sell, quality of such products, pricing it can charge, where it can build its shops and warehouses, appearance of such, hours they can be open, hours of work for employees, age/gender/orientation/race of employees, severance payments for employees, working conditions for employees, ability to become a dominant supplier or buyer of goods and services, whether it can give away plastic bags, size of car parks, provision of maternity pay, provision of sick pay, contributions it must make to pension schemes etc etc etc

And you are saying they are not really regulated. I think you need to think that out again.
I stand corrected. I'll rephrase to undergoing changes to implement corporate fascism as it's work in progress. The majority of the regulations listed do indeed exist today. They were fought for by our recent ancestors. Corporations are paying for changes to these regulations via donations to political parties (one in particular in the UK) and backed up with media brainwashing. These regulations will be systematically removed in the years ahead. It's already started, first were the attacks on welfare. Now we are onto workers rights but first the Unions need to be rendered impotent, that's the current target.

From: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/04/18/1202946/-Have-The-American-People-Accepted-Corporate-State-Fascism#:

'...The fascist corporate state is predatory (rapacious) and its survival depends of constant and rapid "growth." As the citizenry and the environment are squeezed to their limits, the fascist corporate state is forced to strip the citizenry of constitutional rights, the social safety net, and other benefits previous generations struggle to attain.

This is done in order to squeeze even more productivity (profits) from the citizenry, and the environment.'

Sounds familiar to events in the UK since 2010 to me. Or maybe I'm just over reacting?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Sep 9 2015, 10:24 PM
skwirked
Sep 9 2015, 09:58 PM
Steve K
Sep 9 2015, 09:39 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deephttp://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/socialismor regulated by . Many people carefully leave that out when they describe what they want socialism to be.

Communism of course lost

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/communism
A little surprised at this one Steve

The means of production aren't owned by the community and those that are'publicly' owned, are run by politicians who aren't fully accountable and subject to recall.

We live in a capitalist democracy, it may be many things but it's certainly not socialist.

Perhaps social-democratic (in the same way that the Right-wing so ial democrats, the German SPD are/were) but not socialist).
As i said above, a lot of people leave out the words or regulated by when discussing socialism

Why you do that I could make guesses about but I'd suggest it's better that you explain why.
Guess away if you like

I think unaccountable politicians and "community" bodies that supposedly regulate things in the interest of the public spring to mind.

There's no immediate recall, there is no way of the public electing people onto the boards of most regulators, how can our system then be called socialist.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked you seem to have forgotten we had a general election recently conducted in the manner the electorate decided in a referendum. Not accountable? You jest

Gee yes you have a fair point about USA owned companies and the way they act in the USA. A minority of the worlds business world but a very very significant one. There is much to be changed there. They see Europe, Canada, Australia as very socialist as if that's a bad thing.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
Referenda with limited options that some unaccountable body decided:)

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Sep 9 2015, 10:48 PM
skwirked you seem to have forgotten we had a general election recently conducted in the manner the electorate decided in a referendum. Not accountable? You jest

Gee yes you have a fair point about USA owned companies and the way they act in the USA. A minority of the worlds business world but a very very significant one. There is much to be changed there. They see Europe, Canada, Australia as very socialist as if that's a bad thing.

Just got back from the best part of a fortnight in America where I happened upon the following, headed.
'An alternative way to give employees more clout on the job'.

Apparently back in 1935 Pres. Roosevelt passed a law prohibiting employers from retaliating against workers for engaging in concerted activity to improve their wages and conditions. Even when they are not trying to unionize.

I wonder how that would go down in the UK.


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
The Norris-LaGuardia act of 1932 was one of the most famous pieces of US labor regulation
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked
Sep 9 2015, 11:05 PM
The Norris-LaGuardia act of 1932 was one of the most famous pieces of US labor regulation
As far as I can gather American workers, like ourselves, are loosing some ground when it comes to union activities.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Sep 9 2015, 09:57 PM
gee4444
Sep 9 2015, 09:48 PM
Deregulation is more popular today than at any time since WW2. As for ownership, production, distribution and exchange - you're not claiming they're controlled by the community are you?

Therefore today's Western society is far from Socialist. It's best described as corporate fascism.
So take a typical large scale multi national company: Tesco

It is regulated on products it can sell, quality of such products, pricing it can charge, where it can build its shops and warehouses, appearance of such, hours they can be open, hours of work for employees, age/gender/orientation/race of employees, severance payments for employees, working conditions for employees, ability to become a dominant supplier or buyer of goods and services, whether it can give away plastic bags, size of car parks, provision of maternity pay, provision of sick pay, contributions it must make to pension schemes etc etc etc

And you are saying they are not really regulated. I think you need to think that out again.
The problem is that they seek to make a profit and it is that and the profit motive that is reviled. A World based on common interest and good will will see us return to the caves. The profit motive works, it delivers for the masses.

But I thought the thread was about The Peoples QE and Corbynomics?

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Corbyn could be a true man of the people and throw QE money out of a helicopter door himself. Great idea vote ourselves rich and print ourselves rich. Everyone is a winner. Who would not vote for such a revolutionary and simple idea?

"I want some dosh for my holiday in Spain Jeremy". Simples there is a big bag of the stuff, freshly printed this morning by the kind friendly BofE, just next to the waste paper basket. Take the red ones I hear they are more useful as you only need 10 of them to buy a beer.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tytoalba
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Sep 10 2015, 08:41 AM
Corbyn could be a true man of the people and throw QE money out of a helicopter door himself. Great idea vote ourselves rich and print ourselves rich. Everyone is a winner. Who would not vote for such a revolutionary and simple idea?

"I want some dosh for my holiday in Spain Jeremy". Simples there is a big bag of the stuff, freshly printed this morning by the kind friendly BofE, just next to the waste paper basket. Take the red ones I hear they are more useful as you only need 10 of them to buy a beer.



They can take it home in wheelbarrows like they did in Germany in the 1930s.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Sep 9 2015, 11:03 PM
Steve K
Sep 9 2015, 10:48 PM
skwirked you seem to have forgotten we had a general election recently conducted in the manner the electorate decided in a referendum. Not accountable? You jest

Gee yes you have a fair point about USA owned companies and the way they act in the USA. A minority of the worlds business world but a very very significant one. There is much to be changed there. They see Europe, Canada, Australia as very socialist as if that's a bad thing.

Just got back from the best part of a fortnight in America where I happened upon the following, headed.
'An alternative way to give employees more clout on the job'.

Apparently back in 1935 Pres. Roosevelt passed a law prohibiting employers from retaliating against workers for engaging in concerted activity to improve their wages and conditions. Even when they are not trying to unionize.

I wonder how that would go down in the UK.


skwirked
Sep 9 2015, 11:05 PM
The Norris-LaGuardia act of 1932 was one of the most famous pieces of US labor regulation


Well it was a move forward but a limited one that essentially protected workers rights to join a union and engage in union discussions.

It is still disturbingly easy to lay off workers in most US states and typical holiday entitlements are abysmal. Employers there know full well that any employee with a medical condition is very unlikely to risk moving employers (due to health insurance strike outs) and they can pay accordingly.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
They have a lot of teamsters locals in the US.

That system of running a union is more isolative even though it's actually based on German communist practice (originally). They have neutered it.

That reminds me, Germany actually does have "workers councils" where there's supposedly employee-employer-union democracy. More democratic than over here likely but a very smart way of subverting socialist udeals and integrating them into the capitalist framework.

That said, no one wants REALLY to be a socialist anyway.
Edited by skwirked, Sep 10 2015, 10:45 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Learn More · Sign-up Now
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply