iamnumerate Posted January 11, 2018 Share Posted January 11, 2018 1 hour ago, happyguy said: His vision that those who work pay for the lazy and immigrants Same as Nu Labour and the Tories then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djmgw Posted January 11, 2018 Share Posted January 11, 2018 2 hours ago, Fromage Frais said: I distinctly remember a rate cut here in about 2004 when the housing market was starting to correct under its own weight. Without state support these bubbles would not get so large. Correct. August 2005 - August 2005 bank rate was 4.75% and prices started slowing, then this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4745025.stm Swing voter on the MPC who clinched the rate cut was Richard Lambert - as guilty as anyone for the current situation. djmgw Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fromage Frais Posted January 11, 2018 Share Posted January 11, 2018 1 hour ago, djmgw said: Correct. August 2005 - August 2005 bank rate was 4.75% and prices started slowing, then this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4745025.stm Swing voter on the MPC who clinched the rate cut was Richard Lambert - as guilty as anyone for the current situation. djmgw I remember at the time thinking hmm this cut is purely for house price rises. A full few years before the financial crisis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awaytogo Posted January 11, 2018 Share Posted January 11, 2018 16 hours ago, A.steve said: 16 hours ago, A.steve said: https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-politics-davos-labour/labour-partys-finance-chief-to-attend-davos-summit-spokesman-idUKKBN1EZ26D Does anyone know, specifically, what John's plan is for an alternative to the current model of capitalism? Whatever it is it will not benefit the Workers of this country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zugzwang Posted January 11, 2018 Share Posted January 11, 2018 4 hours ago, Errol said: What we had in 2008 wasn't 'free market capitalism' in any way. By 2008 UK financial services had been practically offshored. Three decades on from Thatcher's Big Bang, the neoliberal ideology of privatisation, gloablisation and deregulation which she introduced had entrenched itself everywhere from the IMF to the United Nations. All-conquering and seemingly unassailable, even the Left had taken to parroting its demented nostrums. Moreover, the shadow banking system of non-financial intermediaries through which the City of London contracts most of its daily business was a complete free-for-all, purposefully created beyond the reach of any central bank or regulatory authority. Home to $700 trillion in credit derivatives. To a first approximation, all the money in the world! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonb2 Posted January 11, 2018 Share Posted January 11, 2018 34 minutes ago, zugzwang said: By 2008 UK financial services had been practically offshored. Three decades on from Thatcher's Big Bang, the neoliberal ideology of privatisation, gloablisation and deregulation which she introduced had entrenched itself everywhere from the IMF to the United Nations. All-conquering and seemingly unassailable, even the Left had taken to parroting its demented nostrums. Moreover, the shadow banking system of non-financial intermediaries through which the City of London contracts most of its daily business was a complete free-for-all, purposefully created beyond the reach of any central bank or regulatory authority. Home to $700 trillion in credit derivatives. To a first approximation, all the money in the world! Agree ZZ. You might find the last sentence of this interview interesting. Thatcher set out to make economics the high God, the only thing that matters - it's been downhill ever since. Society is what matters, money should be one of its tools: http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/104475 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roman Roady Posted January 11, 2018 Share Posted January 11, 2018 They all just want to be the smartest guys in their respective rooms when Labour win power in the UK. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spyguy Posted January 11, 2018 Share Posted January 11, 2018 6 hours ago, adarmo said: Because bank bailouts are free market capitalism. One might argue that had it been left to the free market then any feckless wastrel banks would have not taken quite the level of risk they did and we wouldn't be in this mess now. Capitalism works. There are market failures and these are well known and addressed by government. Socialism doesn't work very well. Communism not at all. Indeed. When UKGOV takes 54% of GDP you argue we are a long way from free market. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spyguy Posted January 11, 2018 Share Posted January 11, 2018 3 hours ago, zugzwang said: By 2008 UK financial services had been practically offshored. Three decades on from Thatcher's Big Bang, the neoliberal ideology of privatisation, gloablisation and deregulation which she introduced had entrenched itself everywhere from the IMF to the United Nations. All-conquering and seemingly unassailable, even the Left had taken to parroting its demented nostrums. Moreover, the shadow banking system of non-financial intermediaries through which the City of London contracts most of its daily business was a complete free-for-all, purposefully created beyond the reach of any central bank or regulatory authority. Home to $700 trillion in credit derivatives. To a first approximation, all the money in the world! Nope. The liabilities remained very onshore. I have a much longer response re uk finservices, mainly they were sh1t and, being digits, are easily digitised. The BoE and its post 2007 rules - PRA and MMR - are 40 years too latr. Bank redolution and higher capital requirements should have come in with big bang. Fin services, as a source of revenue and high paying jobs, is over. UK SE is in big trouble. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pitchfork Posted January 11, 2018 Share Posted January 11, 2018 11 hours ago, doomed said: I don't care who you put in charge they can't come up with a plan to create a land of milk and honey for the majority. Sadly, I agree. If you think down to the basic fundamentals of wealth creation, digging stuff out of the ground, energy, adding value, creating things (tangible or virtual) to sell to others in exchange for the wealth, what do we have? So of much of the wealth we had built up over centuries has been sold off for a one time hit of cash. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Odysseus Posted January 11, 2018 Share Posted January 11, 2018 12 hours ago, spyguy said: He's an over aged Sixth form Marxist. He's actually worse than all of the above. And hes a tnuc. The prospect of a true Marxist, who has already called on political opponents to be executed, actually running the government should be deeply deeply worrying for everyone. if you want to know where this could end ... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gulag_Archipelago Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maynardgravy Posted January 11, 2018 Share Posted January 11, 2018 8 hours ago, adarmo said: Because bank bailouts are free market capitalism. One might argue that had it been left to the free market then any feckless wastrel banks would have not taken quite the level of risk they did and we wouldn't be in this mess now. Capitalism works. There are market failures and these are well known and addressed by government. Socialism doesn't work very well. Communism not at all. Ask an 8 year old Bangladeshi girl, sewing up footballs for a few pence a day if capitalism works for her, while Rooney gets £200k a week in-between granny hand jobs. We in the west have been shielded from the blunt end of capitalism for decades by outsourcing it. Now it's started to come home to roost as our middle class becomes eroded. The 'good' times are over. Why do you think Russia had a revolution at all? It wasn't for the sheer hell of it, so calling these market failures when thousands dropped dead in the streets through starvation doesn't do it justice. My hat goes off to anyone who at least attempts to steer away from a brutal system that requires at least as many losers as winners. And I say this as someone who's pretty well minted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oatbake Posted January 11, 2018 Share Posted January 11, 2018 One of the key principles in capitalism is freedom. Nobody is forced to work. Using your example people in Bangladesh make footballs because they can earn more doing that than they can doing something else, or there is some other reason why they prefer doing that work. Just as they are free to work in those jobs, you are free not to buy those products if you disagree with the treatment of workers etc. Clearly to us, on the face of it, this feels like exploitation. I think the reality is that the situation is more complex than it first appears. In theory at least, this kind of free trade *should* make everybody better off. This assumes that all parties are voluntarily agreeing to the exchange. As the great Milton Friedman would say this is not a zero sum game; just because somebody wins doesn't mean somebody else loses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insane Posted January 12, 2018 Share Posted January 12, 2018 35 minutes ago, oatbake said: . Nobody is forced to work. Using your example people in Bangladesh make footballs because they can earn more doing that than they can doing something else, or there is some other reason why they prefer doing that work. Well they do have a choice either that or destitution. Yes they might be doing it for another reason , the reason is they are forced to do it by adults. Watching a few documentaries over the years I never saw anyone say that their work in a sweat shop was a preference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insane Posted January 12, 2018 Share Posted January 12, 2018 41 minutes ago, oatbake said: Clearly to us, on the face of it, this feels like exploitation. I think the reality is that the situation is more complex than it first appears. In theory at least, this kind of free trade *should* make everybody better off. This assumes that all parties are voluntarily agreeing to the exchange. You say in reality the situation is more complex but do not go on explain those complexities. As I said in a previous post the party working in the sweat shop has a choice this or destitution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spyguy Posted January 12, 2018 Share Posted January 12, 2018 8 hours ago, Maynardgravy said: Ask an 8 year old Bangladeshi girl, sewing up footballs for a few pence a day if capitalism works for her, while Rooney gets £200k a week in-between granny hand jobs. We in the west have been shielded from the blunt end of capitalism for decades by outsourcing it. Now it's started to come home to roost as our middle class becomes eroded. The 'good' times are over. Why do you think Russia had a revolution at all? It wasn't for the sheer hell of it, so calling these market failures when thousands dropped dead in the streets through starvation doesn't do it justice. My hat goes off to anyone who at least attempts to steer away from a brutal system that requires at least as many losers as winners. And I say this as someone who's pretty well minted. The problems in Bhangladeshi are down to massive population growth, poor geography prone to flooding and a feudal caste system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adarmo Posted January 12, 2018 Share Posted January 12, 2018 8 hours ago, Maynardgravy said: Ask an 8 year old Bangladeshi girl, sewing up footballs for a few pence a day if capitalism works for her, while Rooney gets £200k a week in-between granny hand jobs. We in the west have been shielded from the blunt end of capitalism for decades by outsourcing it. Now it's started to come home to roost as our middle class becomes eroded. The 'good' times are over. Why do you think Russia had a revolution at all? It wasn't for the sheer hell of it, so calling these market failures when thousands dropped dead in the streets through starvation doesn't do it justice. My hat goes off to anyone who at least attempts to steer away from a brutal system that requires at least as many losers as winners. And I say this as someone who's pretty well minted. Why would i interrupt her when she's sewing up footballs? Average is 21 cents per hour according to a quick look on google. Funnily enough you use the football industry as an example here. Capitalism hasn't failed it's just that people who watch the footer are a bit stupid and will throw money at tv channels and footer clubs while scrimping on equipment. I much prefer cycling where you can watch it pretty much for free and then spend thousands on a bike. That's just me. You've not explained how capitalism has failed. You've just made an awful comparison between a highly skilled (pains me to say that) footy kicker in one of the worlds richest countries and a child doing fairly low skilled work in one of the world's poorest. Capitalism hasn't failed and i say that as someone who is not well minted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adarmo Posted January 12, 2018 Share Posted January 12, 2018 9 hours ago, Maynardgravy said: Ask an 8 year old Bangladeshi girl, sewing up footballs for a few pence a day if capitalism works for her, while Rooney gets £200k a week in-between granny hand jobs. We in the west have been shielded from the blunt end of capitalism for decades by outsourcing it. Now it's started to come home to roost as our middle class becomes eroded. The 'good' times are over. Why do you think Russia had a revolution at all? It wasn't for the sheer hell of it, so calling these market failures when thousands dropped dead in the streets through starvation doesn't do it justice. My hat goes off to anyone who at least attempts to steer away from a brutal system that requires at least as many losers as winners. And I say this as someone who's pretty well minted. The gaping hole in your point though is that it's communism that suggests everyone should be more or less equal and not capitalism. If I'm wrong would you be gracious enough to point me to the bit in capitalism that says everyone should be paid the same? Are you assessing capitalism's failure on a communist (or your own) framework? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomandlu Posted January 12, 2018 Share Posted January 12, 2018 Shrug. It looks to me like capitalism is working perfectly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamnumerate Posted January 12, 2018 Share Posted January 12, 2018 10 hours ago, Maynardgravy said: Why do you think Russia had a revolution at all? It wasn't for the sheer hell of it, so calling these market failures when thousands dropped dead in the streets through starvation doesn't do it justice. Russia did not have free market capitalism before the revolution. Sadly despite it being a brutal feudal regime the communists killed a lot more due to system failure (starvation) and of course deliberately. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jolly Roger Posted January 12, 2018 Share Posted January 12, 2018 Can anyone even fix the situation even with the best intentions? It's like that Adam Curtis documentary, the elites don't want to admit things are a runaway train so it's all about managing perceptions and token gestures. A tax change here, a regulatory review there. Like when Corbyn bleats at PMQs about "pensioners and OUR NHS", does he even deep down believe he can get it fixed with just another cash injection? It's all pantomime, actors playing a part. The problems are complexity and scale, it seems like we are reaching hard limits of what humans are capable of dealing with. You push a button one place, another one pops up somewhere else. All the trillions in derivatives, an economy interwoven with not just with energy prices but global finance, laws and agreements at various levels (regional, national, EU, global). You make one small change and second or third order effects spring up 10, 20, 50 years down the line, all the while everything is feeding back into everything else. A street seller does protesting food prices and it kicks off regional instability, setting off proxy wars all over the globe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Social Justice League Posted January 12, 2018 Share Posted January 12, 2018 22 hours ago, zugzwang said: Free market capitalism failed in 2008. The central bankers have spent a decade trying and failing to resurrect its corpse. McDonnell will hopefully demonstrate to them the absolute folly of this ambition. Agree, the last 10 years have been a total embarrassment for all involved. The desperation to keep the wheels on is sicking. The wheels flew off and disappeared into the sunset when we bailed out the useless banking system, all paid for by the taxpayer. Disgraceful. Chickens are coming home to roost though. The next collapse will see the end of the current system imo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oatbake Posted January 12, 2018 Share Posted January 12, 2018 2 hours ago, Social Justice League said: The desperation to keep the wheels on is sicking. The wheels flew off and disappeared into the sunset when we bailed out the useless banking system, all paid for by the taxpayer The free market (capitalist) way of dealing with this would certainly not have involved state intervention. Banks would have gone bust, savers would have list their money and guilty bankers would have ended up in jail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zugzwang Posted January 12, 2018 Share Posted January 12, 2018 5 minutes ago, oatbake said: The free market (capitalist) way of dealing with this would certainly not have involved state intervention. Banks would have gone bust, savers would have list their money and guilty bankers would have ended up in jail. Too big to fail means exactly what it says: a systemic threat that cannot be ignored. Bear Stearns alone had a notional credit derivatives exposure of $13.5 trillion by the end of 2007, with assets of $395bn vs a net equity position of just $11.1 bn. Given the scale of distress caused by Lehman's collapse it was inconceivable that BS would also be allowed to slide into bankruptcy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PopGun Posted January 12, 2018 Share Posted January 12, 2018 23 hours ago, adarmo said: Because bank bailouts are free market capitalism. Nope state intervention bailed it out. You could argue that insurance was always there, and I’d struggle to counter that. 23 hours ago, adarmo said: Socialism doesn't work very well. Communism not at all. Depends on implementation. Denmark better, Venezuela Not so Agreed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.