Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Paul Krugman Attacks Britain's Austerity Drive As 'deeply Destructive'


Recommended Posts

Good post.

In my very humble opinion, I think alot of our amazing 'technological discoveries' are drib feeds from decades old innovations. (Didn't the Queen send her first email from a Navy base in the 1970s?). So I reckon a lot of technology is purposefully being held back or stalled in development. No point in presenting the world with a game changing energy solution when there's still money to be made in oil etc.

I wouldn't be suprised if an innovation will be announced in the eleventh hour, 'saving' us from the abyss. Which in turn will mean business as usual for worldwide governments.

With the Internet, it's getting harder and harder to keep things secret. I suspect that there will be a technological breakthrough soon, possibly in the shape of LENR - we will know with good certainty, within 6-12 months.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 311
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Well there clearly isn't enough to go around - unless your anarchist society exists within the borders of a heavily armed state.

Here's my logical position.

1) Everyone has an equal right to exist.

2) Everyone has an equal right to procreate.

3) We are confined to a World with finite resources

So unless strict population control is imposed by what would then be a draconian state, conflict for resources - or what you would describe as 'evil' is inevitable.

If anyone can spot a flaw in this argument please point it out, because the logic seems inescapable to me.

:)

number 3 is the important one 1 & 2 can and will be changed as number 3 becomes more apparent, wait till prople are hungry and poor and see how nice they are

Link to post
Share on other sites

Once energy becomes plentiful (through technology), what will be the next excuse to take stuff from others?

Wont need an excuse because there will not be any reason to do so.

Once the pyramid of needs is satisfied, life is good - why would want to shorten that life for no discernible benefit. Dressed up however you want, conflict is always down to control of resources and fear (justified or not) over those resources.

Link to post
Share on other sites

With the Internet, it's getting harder and harder to keep things secret. I suspect that there will be a technological breakthrough soon, possibly in the shape of LENR - we will know with good certainty, within 6-12 months.

Feckin hope so.

Will completely change my world view. l'd probably dance a jig.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The thread would have gone dead days ago anyway, without the topic diverging.

Irrelevant. People come to a site and see a topic title they like and expect to be able to read about it.

Then they read your spam and don't return.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wont need an excuse because there will not be any reason to do so.

Once the pyramid of needs is satisfied, life is good - why would want to shorten that life for no discernible benefit. Dressed up however you want, conflict is always down to control of resources and fear (justified or not) over those resources.

I'm sure they will find some excuse! I hope you are right though.

Edited by Traktion
Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO, many minarchists are the same, which is why ideologically, they are far away from anarchists.

No doubt that legal framework that you wish for, will also be created by the wealthy and influential too. Exclusive land ownership (monopoly) would likely be top of the list, to keep the poor paying rent too. Maybe it would also include defining corporations as legal identities, preferably with limited liability.

Unless the legal framework is created from the bottom up, those at the top will create laws to suit themselves, at the expense of others. Legal arbitration/judgements need to be left to the free market, just as any other service should be.

Putting aside that we don't get to create from the ground up, we only get to influence the direction of travel for the moment:

I actually favour any legal framework being as short as possible. A short document, maybe 20 pages. I actually want the vast majority no actually all tort law to be derived from case law as it suits my libertarian principles. It would evolve and be decided by the people, 12 at a time. There is no need for the state to decided murder is illegal, case law can do that perfectly well, and derive the nuances better.

My framework would cover the limitations on tax collection and coercion. Essentially requiring all spending to budgeted at elections and voted on.

OK, What constitutes a small state, and how would it be kept small. I guess I could accept a system that would coerce 10% of 'GDP' on what is now referred to as public services. Thing is, once you get people to accept coercion is OK, that 10% would become 20% and so on.

Coercion is a bit like pregnancy....... you can't have only part of it.

This is the key bit, how do you keep a state small?

My legal framework would demand that all taxes and government spend to be expressly voted on. Also all taxation/spending must be decided regionally, I would envisage the UK being split into maybe 30 different regions.

In each region the people would have to vote on each area of government separately, and their budgets.

So lets say you lived in East Wessex (my 30 regions derive from the old Saxon regions- this area of my theory can be improved later) and you elect a governor for your region with the power to propose government functions. Your governor decided that his people may want a Health Sheriff so he calls for elections to the post.

Several candidates come forward to take up the Health job, each is legally required to explain what they would do and present a budget for doing so. So Mr Smith campaigns on his manifesto and presents a budget that says he needs £xbn to deliver this service over the next 5 years, and that will cost taxpayer East Wessex 0.85% of their land value each year. Mr Jones delivers his manifesto and budget, saying it will require taxpayers 1.15% of land value to implement.

Elections are every ...say 5 years... or when their budget gets used up, You can't borrow, you can't go over budget without triggering a fresh election for the role.

Some points:

Only Taxpayer get a vote.

Taxes are always done on land value.

Each individual would have a decent allowance, meaning taxes fall mainly on southern landowners (or whatever land is expensive, and whoever hordes land).

Elections are done on the French presidential style, whatever you call that. Where the top 2 go final round.

If there is not at least 50% turnout at an election the election is considered non-quorum and the role is never created.

The governor can only propose sheriff roles that need creating...Health, Roads, Crime, Fire etc, anything else needs referendum.

Under my ideal system people in different parts of the country can have whatever political system they so desire. If people in county A want a huge state they can have that buy electing a Governor who proposes lots of state roles, and then electing people with ambitious tax and spend plans....as long as they are happy to pay for them.

If people in county B want to live in an anarchist county they can do so simply by refusing to participate in any election, making them non-quorum.

The national legal fraemwork would provide that people can mover around as they wish, so like minded people can group together in a particular county to get the type of government they prefer.

Most services I imagine would be delivered via the free market, as in most areas a standing public sector would not be viable long term, but it could happen.

This is all the short version. I have thought about getting this down in a pamphlet sometime.

[edit] Great, just as this thread gets interesting the mods decide to kill it. Wish I had not wasted 10 minutes on the above now, thanks for nothing mods.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Irrelevant. People come to a site and see a topic title they like and expect to be able to read about it.

Then they read your spam and don't return.

Bullsh1t.

You absolutely do not know this.

How many have you questioned?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Putting aside that we don't get to create from the ground up, we only get to influence the direction of travel for the moment:

I actually favour any legal framework being as short as possible. A short document, maybe 20 pages. I actually want the vast majority no actually all tort law to be derived from case law as it suits my libertarian principles. It would evolve and be decided by the people, 12 at a time. There is no need for the state to decided murder is illegal, case law can do that perfectly well, and derive the nuances better.

My framework would cover the limitations on tax collection and coercion. Essentially requiring all spending to budgeted at elections and voted on.

This is the key bit, how do you keep a state small?

My legal framework would demand that all taxes and government spend to be expressly voted on. Also all taxation/spending must be decided regionally, I would envisage the UK being split into maybe 30 different regions.

In each region the people would have to vote on each area of government separately, and their budgets.

So lets say you lived in East Wessex (my 30 regions derive from the old Saxon regions- this area of my theory can be improved later) and you elect a governor for your region with the power to propose government functions. Your governor decided that his people may want a Health Sheriff so he calls for elections to the post.

Several candidates come forward to take up the Health job, each is legally required to explain what they would do and present a budget for doing so. So Mr Smith campaigns on his manifesto and presents a budget that says he needs £xbn to deliver this service over the next 5 years, and that will cost taxpayer East Wessex 0.85% of their land value each year. Mr Jones delivers his manifesto and budget, saying it will require taxpayers 1.15% of land value to implement.

Elections are every ...say 5 years... or when their budget gets used up, You can't borrow, you can't go over budget without triggering a fresh election for the role.

Some points:

Only Taxpayer get a vote.

Taxes are always done on land value.

Each individual would have a decent allowance, meaning taxes fall mainly on southern landowners (or whatever land is expensive, and whoever hordes land).

Elections are done on the French presidential style, whatever you call that. Where the top 2 go final round.

If there is not at least 50% turnout at an election the election is considered non-quorum and the role is never created.

The governor can only propose sheriff roles that need creating...Health, Roads, Crime, Fire etc, anything else needs referendum.

Under my ideal system people in different parts of the country can have whatever political system they so desire. If people in county A want a huge state they can have that buy electing a Governor who proposes lots of state roles, and then electing people with ambitious tax and spend plans....as long as they are happy to pay for them.

If people in county B want to live in an anarchist county they can do so simply by refusing to participate in any election, making them non-quorum.

The national legal fraemwork would provide that people can mover around as they wish, so like minded people can group together in a particular county to get the type of government they prefer.

Most services I imagine would be delivered via the free market, as in most areas a standing public sector would not be viable long term, but it could happen.

This is all the short version. I have thought about getting this down in a pamphlet sometime.

[edit] Great, just as this thread gets interesting the mods decide to kill it. Wish I had not wasted 10 minutes on the above now, thanks for nothing mods.

That was NOT 10 minutes wasted. More like the most useful post of the week, compared with all the others churning out the same old tired arguments.

(I've just deleted the rest of what I was going to say .........just in case)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Would you read and reply to a thread thread titled 'Kneading techiniques for breadmakers' to muse about the benefits of home brew beer?!

yes, but how do YOU know I (or others) wouldn't?

Conversation / debate can (should) take many turns, I'm interested to know why that displeases you?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul Krugman is right. Austerity in a down-turn is counter-productive.

The best way to reduce national debt is to grow the economy out of it.

Arguments to the contrary are either based upon blind dogma, ignorance,

misplaced morality, or any combination thereof. Go down the road of "austerity", but mark his words.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.