Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Fox Ulike]

5 minutes ago, Sampson said:

But that's exactly what already does exist in Western and Central Europe, North America and countries like Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea etc. now and that's what I believe in - the modern liberal capitalist state with checks and balances like minimum wage laws, anti-trust laws, competition laws etc. Socialised essentials like health care, schooling, police force etc. for services where the importance to offer to all vastly outweighs the inefficiencies which nationalisation inevitibly brings - Western Liberal modern day Capitalism already has brought people better qualities of lives than any other system - to the point that for the first time in history in the West more people die from obesity and suicide than they do of starvation - the problem is people concentrate too much on how much money they have compared to others rather than what their money can actually afford them in comparison to the past.

 

But there always has to be an element of financial inequality in this system and there has to be a class system. The problem is though, that doesn't necessarily mean people's lives and quality of life doesn't go up because of Economic inequality. The standard of living increase in Capitalist states over the past 100 or 200 odd years vastly outweighs pretty much any other system humans have ever devised because it naturally increases innovation and ideas which companies will make more money if they can sell these ideas to the masses.

 

No one is saying that wealth inequality isn't horrible but it's how societies move forward - it's how we innovate - because 99% of products and services offered won't benefit society in a big way, but that 1% that do - the Ford motor car or the cheap sliced bread which costs the average person 5 minutes of labour or the movie camera or the computer or the Lidl model supermarket - you need to allow the financial freedom for the 100% of products attempts to go through to allow these innovations so that what society dictates as the good ones can go through and you also need to allow for innovation creating competition too. You need to allow for the capitalists to create the national wealth so both they and other people invest in these ideas and create these jobs.

 

Sorry, how exactly does wealth inequality help us to innovate? Don't understand that..

[leicsmac]

57 minutes ago, Sampson said:

Obama is absolutely a Centrist to Centre-Right politician. I understand America never had a Socialist movement like the rest of the world so you've got a weird distorted view of things but the guy is overwhelmingly in favour of the free market.

 

Go and read about the Weimar Republic where money became so worthless it essentially didn't exist and why it led to the Nazi Party coming into power. Or Hungary following the Second World War after becoming a Soviet puppet state.

 

The alternative to money is a Barter System. Every human being can be as nice and as well intentioned as they want but they still only have limited labour time and most of us want leisure time too. Once you give up money, everyone has to barter their specialised skills away and to who they will help provide them to in their limited labour time and that is incredibly inefficient especially as most products require many different steps to happen.

 

Money allows an extremely quick and standardised means of exchange - that's literally all it is - a way you get an amount for the favours you have provided to others so you can spend it so other people can provide favours to you - society and the laws of supply and demand decides what each favour is worth and that's all money represents.

 

Of course plenty of people abuse money and get greedy but money is absolutely an inherently good thing. The alternative is having to go to someone (who could be the other side of the world and speaking a completely different language to you) and barter a favour out of their limited labour hours and hope they don't have 30,000 other people also trying to use their particular expertise in society in their limited amount of labour hours.

 

Money is so so efficient. It's one of the greatest inventions humans have ever come up with and probably the single biggest invention above any other that have got us to where we are as a society and as educated and well informed as all of human history and the shared information over the ages has allowed us to get.

 

No one will deny that like any system there aren't huge flaws with it, but pretty much everything from scientific, technological and societal innovation come from it. Money is one of the main things that seperate humans from Chimpanzees or other society based animals like ants or bees.

 

It's what allows 7 billion humans to interact with each other and work with each other whereas sociological research seems to suggest that 150 people is about the maximum a group can work with each other without such systems.

 

I do not believe there will ever or can ever be an Economic future where it doesn't exist without completely destroying human societal efficiency because the Barter System is just such a horribly inefficient alternative to it. 

 

So yes, Economics matters and will always matter while human society exists.

I haven't always lived in the US (only for the last few months, actually)...so I am acutely aware of what the political compass is like in other parts of the world. I suppose you could call Obama centrist, as like you said economically he was very free-market oriented...but socially his administration was very liberal. Would you deny that socially conservative movements around the world aren't in favour of gay marriage and abortion, then?

 

Regarding the rest of what you say here...I'm not sure I'm being clear enough on my point because it appears to have been missed: economics is important now and probably will be for a while yet, but it's by no means the most important factor for humanity long-term. And the reason for that importance - why economies collapsed and the social upheaval that results from them, often resulting in very bad consequences...is simply because we attach critical importance to those systems. It works simply because people believe it does, not because of any inherent quality attached to it. That means that it is, and always will be, subjective; in a way that other fundamental areas of science are not. Like I said, long term...scientific advancement and what humans do with resources regardless of arbitrary economic concerns we put on them matters much more.

 

The idea that the only alternative to a monetary-based economy is a barter system is IMO fallacious too - or at least the idea that that will always be the case. The overall goal of economic systems should always be, IMO, an endgame where we don't need them any more - where a system is in place where scarcity (either natural or contrived) is a thing of the past, where distribution is so effective resources can be produced practically on demand, where humans no longer have to manufacture or labour and can instead involve themselves in the creative and the leisurely as and when they like.

 

Just because we rely so heavily on something for the present time...doesn't mean that always has to be so.

Edited 27 September 2017 by leicsmac

[Guest Foxin_mad]

1 hour ago, toddybad said:

Corporatiin tax receipts have gone up because the economy was shattered before they were down. As business profits have increased so have corporation tax revenues. This is particularly true of the banks. Cutting the rate hasn't done this. 

Nope...

 

The reason the economy was 'shattered' was because the last Labour government cocked it up and cocked it up big style! 28% corporation tax even before the global recession all Labour fans bang on about they were shafting over business and killing the country slowly.

 

Provide evidence that cutting the rate has not increased corporation tax revenues. It has and will continue to do so. It is common sense, provide a less punitive tax rate and more people will pay it, very simple.

 

Im looking forward to not working when Corbyn gets in I hope all those public sector worked will pay some more tax for my universal income for doing **** all!

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

Nope...

 

The reason the economy was 'shattered' was because the last Labour government cocked it up and cocked it up big style! 28% corporation tax even before the global recession all Labour fans bang on about they were shafting over business and killing the country slowly.

 

Provide evidence that cutting the rate has not increased corporation tax revenues. It has and will continue to do so. It is common sense, provide a less punitive tax rate and more people will pay it, very simple.

 

Im looking forward to not working when Corbyn gets in I hope all those public sector worked will pay some more tax for my universal income for doing **** all!

Three things. New Labour was incredibly successful at raising living standards, improving public services and growing the economy until a GLOBAL financial crisis kicked in. One of the best governments in history judged on those things. The economy hadn't seen a recession since 1992.

 

Secondly, people shouldn't have the choice of whether to pay tax. It's rather telling the amount of self employed people on here who believe it is a choice. 

 

Third, you really need to look into this. Corporation tax revenues increased because the economy improved markedly. Banks were posting record losses at the time. 

[Guest Foxin_mad]

20 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Three things. New Labour was incredibly successful at raising living standards, improving public services and growing the economy until a GLOBAL financial crisis kicked in. One of the best governments in history judged on those things. The economy hadn't seen a recession since 1992.

 

Secondly, people shouldn't have the choice of whether to pay tax. It's rather telling the amount of self employed people on here who believe it is a choice. 

 

Third, you really need to look into this. Corporation tax revenues increased because the economy improved markedly. Banks were posting record losses at the time. 

I think this is all subjective. My living standards were awful during the early 2000s, it is the only time I have ever found it hard to get a job. It was crap, house prices expanded stupidly so I could not afford to get one. Everything was built on a bubble. I am not seeing any official figures showing this being the most successful time ever evidenced.  If Labour had managed the economy properly we could have survived the recession better without spending £150 billion we didn't have, stop pedalling the 'global financial crisis' nonsense, some countries avoided the impact because they were not borrowing large amounts. Labour followed the Tory plan for the first few years and then started their debt binge.

 

People shouldn't be forced to pay huge amounts either. I agree people should pay tax, my point is that we should pay a flat rate, based on a higher income threshold.

 

Your third point again, this is just an opinion. More business and more jobs will increase revenue, the number of business has increased the number of jobs has too in the past 7 years. Increasing corporation tax to 25% or whatever will reduce the take in the long term, that is absolute fact. It will also reduce jobs and investment in the country at a time we need it most, it is an absolutely stupid idea. Labour never ever learn, don't bite the hand that feeds.

 

Corbyn is a nasty spiteful man.

 

I'm past caring now to be honest more and more people seem to be falling for this shit, let them have it. I don't expect to see any complaints when they inevitably **** it up and no one has a job, including those in the public sector when the money tree stops spewing money. At least we will all be equal! all equally poor! A true socialist utopia as always!

Edited 27 September 2017 by Foxin_mad

[davieG]

Is the globalisation of business inevitable and is it essential for capitalism to continue. 

One of the big problems now it seems to me is the inability of countries to regulate these global concerns where in many cases they are 'richer' than the countries trying to regulate, control and tax them.

[Sampson]

Just now, Fox Ulike said:

 

Sorry, how exactly does wealth inequality help us to innovate? Don't understand that..

Ok, as a simple example:

 

there are 1,000 new products and services which 1,000 different people have invented or come up with in the past week which they think can benefit society. Everything from innovative new computer games, new kitchen appliances, new budgeting apps, new systems to innovate ways people communicate more efficiently, a new middle man company which can make selling food cheaper, a new more efficient way of using electricity, probably some new stuff no one could have thought of etc. etc. Some of these have been created by already established big businesses, some by new start ups and everything in between.

 

However, they or no one else know what the general public want or actually sell either at this moment in time, in 6 months time, in 5 years time, in 10 years time.

 

So the overwhelming majority of these products will never go anywhere - well over 900 of them will fail and people just won't be interested in selling them, a few of these might get by moderately in a niche market and an even fewer of these (probably less than 10) will sell hundreds of millions of products or completely change their industry.

 

How do these products get out there? Through investment mostly -- through essentially crowd funding, a rich person wants to make more money and he sees a product or service which he thinks would sell and thinks he'll get on that and so buys a stake in the company - at which point the company cam use this extra money for advertising, creating new jobs to increase manufacturing numbers etc. etc.

 

Once this product becomes popular, naturally another company or other companies come into the market with a similar product which drives innovation to either refine the product or to make more money by selling it to the masses (which is why every Western Capitalist country has anti-monopoly laws and pro competition laws, because competition in business is good for its people).

 

Look at the current market for electric cars with Tesla, Uber and a few others for example how their technology is constantly updating and their prices are being driven down because of the competition and because it appears like the laws of demand seem to suggest that the mass rolling out of electric cars is currently wanted by the public which is why everyone is predicting we're on the cusp of electric self-driven cars.

 

Anyway, the reason you need rich private investors to be the ones investing in these things is for 2 reasons:

 

1. The reason it doesn't work in nationalised markets and why Socialism naturally reduces innovation is because governments cannot afford to take the risks that 1,000 different investors can. They have a limited supply of money which mostly comes from tax payers and you just don't know which of the 1,000 products will sell and which won't - and you cannot afford to start making all 1,000, spend the money on infrastructure of the 1,000 new businesses, hire people to design, make, market and sell these products and services etc. when the overwhelming majority of them will fail. - This is what people mean when they say the problem with Socialism is you inevitably run out of other people's money. But unrelated, private investors or Capitalists or Entrepreneur funding themselves or someone else's product, can as a collective - It's not nice if your new business or new product fails as an indivual of course it's not but it's a hell of a lot better than the alternative when this is all biblically funded by the tax payer - and we all, as individuals, benefit a lot more and get a lot more innovations as a result of this system.

 

2. The reason forcing Capitalists and the rich to give more and more up in tax to the the less well off hampers this is because wealthy people invest in numerous companies at once as they hedge their bets as that's the tried tested and proven way to make money on the Stock Market (and reduces their risk of losing because most businesses and products fail) - and you need hundred if not thousands of these people to take a risk on your company or new product or service by an established company (which because it is always in competition with rival companies because of our anti-monopoly and pro-competition laws, always are at risk of being left behind if they don't innovate like their competitors do).

 

Again, think of how some companies (HMV, Virgin Megastore etc.) got left behind and had to radically change in recent times because technological innovation and how their competitors used it better than them moved the goalposts.

 

You need this position in the Stock Market where people feel they can fairly make money off it else no one would bother funding businesses and innovations and you need many wealthy people in that and if you want Capitalists and rich people to invest millions across numerous companies then they need to be in a position where millions of pounds is just a drop in the ocean to them else they will not risk investing that much.

 

And this is not to mention the tens of thousands of jobs that investors and Capitalists create through this way too - this is why Capitalists create wealth a lot more efficiently than Governments do - and you need to allow them to have that element where thet can afford to lose millions in risky ventured and they can afford to invest in hundreds of companies at once as one or two of them will cover the losses on the other 98 or 99.

 

And what do you think will happen in the international market in 2017 (especially given Brexit) if we slap huge extra taxes on Capitalists and huge Corporations while also raising the mimumu. wage at such a huge rate - investors will just invest in companies elsewhere - in different countries where It's easier to make money. Unless this is done world wide at the same time (which is not feasable given how every natiomal economy is in a hugely different position of growth and has very different population densities, natural resources, climates etc. etc.) then you've got to be very naive to think it won't drive investors away.

 

Again, no one thinks Capitalism is perfect and doesn't have huge flaws - yes, It's shitty seeing the famous Capitalists like Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Warren Buffett and Mark Zuckerberg have all this money while millions live below the poverty line but you have to remember they create tens of thousands of jobs, they invest and buy companies which helps improve the lives of the many and they create both innovation and wealth at an international level much more efficiently than Governments can.

 

But I think Ed Miliband put it best that that it was the "least worst Economic system humans have come up with" to date. And that doesn't mean every Capitalisy country has succeeded either, but it's unquestionably pulled people out of poverty, into being able to afford food and improved the quality of life of the average individual far better than any other type of Economic system which humans have come up with so far (And that's not to say that humans won't come up with a better system in the future, especially given future technology, but neither nationalizing markets or mass wealth equality is the answer).

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, Sampson said:

Ok, as a simple example:

 

there are 1,000 new products and services which 1,000 different people have invented or come up with in the past week which they think can benefit society. Everything from innovative new computer games, new kitchen appliances, new budgeting apps, new systems to innovate ways people communicate more efficiently, a new middle man company which can make selling food cheaper, a new more efficient way of using electricity, probably some new stuff no one could have thought of etc. etc. Some of these have been created by already established big businesses, some by new start ups and everything in between.

 

However, they or no one else know what the general public want or actually sell either at this moment in time, in 6 months time, in 5 years time, in 10 years time.

 

So the overwhelming majority of these products will never go anywhere - well over 900 of them will fail and people just won't be interested in selling them, a few of these might get by moderately in a niche market and an even fewer of these (probably less than 10) will sell hundreds of millions of products or completely change their industry.

 

How do these products get out there? Through investment mostly -- through essentially crowd funding, a rich person wants to make more money and he sees a product or service which he thinks would sell and thinks he'll get on that and so buys a stake in the company - at which point the company cam use this extra money for advertising, creating new jobs to increase manufacturing numbers etc. etc.

 

Once this product becomes popular, naturally another company or other companies come into the market with a similar product which drives innovation to either refine the product or to make more money by selling it to the masses (which is why every Western Capitalist country has anti-monopoly laws and pro competition laws, because competition in business is good for its people).

 

Look at the current market for electric cars with Tesla, Uber and a few others for example how their technology is constantly updating and their prices are being driven down because of the competition and because it appears like the laws of demand seem to suggest that the mass rolling out of electric cars is currently wanted by the public which is why everyone is predicting we're on the cusp of electric self-driven cars.

 

Anyway, the reason you need rich private investors to be the ones investing in these things is for 2 reasons:

 

1. The reason it doesn't work in nationalised markets and why Socialism naturally reduces innovation is because governments cannot afford to take the risks that 1,000 different investors can. They have a limited supply of money which mostly comes from tax payers and you just don't know which of the 1,000 products will sell and which won't - and you cannot afford to start making all 1,000, spend the money on infrastructure of the 1,000 new businesses, hire people to design, make, market and sell these products and services etc. when the overwhelming majority of them will fail. - This is what people mean when they say the problem with Socialism is you inevitably run out of other people's money. But unrelated, private investors or Capitalists or Entrepreneur funding themselves or someone else's product, can as a collective - It's not nice if your new business or new product fails as an indivual of course it's not but it's a hell of a lot better than the alternative when this is all biblically funded by the tax payer - and we all, as individuals, benefit a lot more and get a lot more innovations as a result of this system.

 

2. The reason forcing Capitalists and the rich to give more and more up in tax to the the less well off hampers this is because wealthy people invest in numerous companies at once as they hedge their bets as that's the tried tested and proven way to make money on the Stock Market (and reduces their risk of losing because most businesses and products fail) - and you need hundred if not thousands of these people to take a risk on your company or new product or service by an established company (which because it is always in competition with rival companies because of our anti-monopoly and pro-competition laws, always are at risk of being left behind if they don't innovate like their competitors do).

 

Again, think of how some companies (HMV, Virgin Megastore etc.) got left behind and had to radically change in recent times because technological innovation and how their competitors used it better than them moved the goalposts.

 

You need this position in the Stock Market where people feel they can fairly make money off it else no one would bother funding businesses and innovations and you need many wealthy people in that and if you want Capitalists and rich people to invest millions across numerous companies then they need to be in a position where millions of pounds is just a drop in the ocean to them else they will not risk investing that much.

 

And this is not to mention the tens of thousands of jobs that investors and Capitalists create through this way too - this is why Capitalists create wealth a lot more efficiently than Governments do - and you need to allow them to have that element where thet can afford to lose millions in risky ventured and they can afford to invest in hundreds of companies at once as one or two of them will cover the losses on the other 98 or 99.

 

And what do you think will happen in the international market in 2017 (especially given Brexit) if we slap huge extra taxes on Capitalists and huge Corporations while also raising the mimumu. wage at such a huge rate - investors will just invest in companies elsewhere - in different countries where It's easier to make money. Unless this is done world wide at the same time (which is not feasable given how every natiomal economy is in a hugely different position of growth and has very different population densities, natural resources, climates etc. etc.) then you've got to be very naive to think it won't drive investors away.

 

Again, no one thinks Capitalism is perfect and doesn't have huge flaws - yes, It's shitty seeing the famous Capitalists like Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Warren Buffett and Mark Zuckerberg have all this money while millions live below the poverty line but you have to remember they create tens of thousands of jobs, they invest and buy companies which helps improve the lives of the many and they create both innovation and wealth at an international level much more efficiently than Governments can.

 

But I think Ed Miliband put it best that that it was the "least worst Economic system humans have come up with" to date. And that doesn't mean every Capitalisy country has succeeded either, but it's unquestionably pulled people out of poverty, into being able to afford food and improved the quality of life of the average individual far better than any other type of Economic system which humans have come up with so far (And that's not to say that humans won't come up with a better system in the future, especially given future technology, but neither nationalizing markets or mass wealth equality is the answer).

Yeah but we're talking about a few key sectors being nationalised, not the entire economy.

[Fox Ulike]

7 minutes ago, Sampson said:

Ok, as a simple example:

 

there are 1,000 new products and services which 1,000 different people have invented or come up with in the past week which they think can benefit society. Everything from innovative new computer games, new kitchen appliances, new budgeting apps, new systems to innovate ways people communicate more efficiently, a new middle man company which can make selling food cheaper, a new more efficient way of using electricity, probably some new stuff no one could have thought of etc. etc. Some of these have been created by already established big businesses, some by new start ups and everything in between.

 

However, they or no one else know what the general public want or actually sell either at this moment in time, in 6 months time, in 5 years time, in 10 years time.

 

So the overwhelming majority of these products will never go anywhere - well over 900 of them will fail and people just won't be interested in selling them, a few of these might get by moderately in a niche market and an even fewer of these (probably less than 10) will sell hundreds of millions of products or completely change their industry.

 

How do these products get out there? Through investment mostly -- through essentially crowd funding, a rich person wants to make more money and he sees a product or service which he thinks would sell and thinks he'll get on that and so buys a stake in the company - at which point the company cam use this extra money for advertising, creating new jobs to increase manufacturing numbers etc. etc.

 

Once this product becomes popular, naturally another company or other companies come into the market with a similar product which drives innovation to either refine the product or to make more money by selling it to the masses (which is why every Western Capitalist country has anti-monopoly laws and pro competition laws, because competition in business is good for its people).

 

Look at the current market for electric cars with Tesla, Uber and a few others for example how their technology is constantly updating and their prices are being driven down because of the competition and because it appears like the laws of demand seem to suggest that the mass rolling out of electric cars is currently wanted by the public which is why everyone is predicting we're on the cusp of electric self-driven cars.

 

Anyway, the reason you need rich private investors to be the ones investing in these things is for 2 reasons:

 

1. The reason it doesn't work in nationalised markets and why Socialism naturally reduces innovation is because governments cannot afford to take the risks that 1,000 different investors can. They have a limited supply of money which mostly comes from tax payers and you just don't know which of the 1,000 products will sell and which won't - and you cannot afford to start making all 1,000, spend the money on infrastructure of the 1,000 new businesses, hire people to design, make, market and sell these products and services etc. when the overwhelming majority of them will fail. - This is what people mean when they say the problem with Socialism is you inevitably run out of other people's money. But unrelated, private investors or Capitalists or Entrepreneur funding themselves or someone else's product, can as a collective - It's not nice if your new business or new product fails as an indivual of course it's not but it's a hell of a lot better than the alternative when this is all biblically funded by the tax payer - and we all, as individuals, benefit a lot more and get a lot more innovations as a result of this system.

 

2. The reason forcing Capitalists and the rich to give more and more up in tax to the the less well off hampers this is because wealthy people invest in numerous companies at once as they hedge their bets as that's the tried tested and proven way to make money on the Stock Market (and reduces their risk of losing because most businesses and products fail) - and you need hundred if not thousands of these people to take a risk on your company or new product or service by an established company (which because it is always in competition with rival companies because of our anti-monopoly and pro-competition laws, always are at risk of being left behind if they don't innovate like their competitors do).

 

Again, think of how some companies (HMV, Virgin Megastore etc.) got left behind and had to radically change in recent times because technological innovation and how their competitors used it better than them moved the goalposts.

 

You need this position in the Stock Market where people feel they can fairly make money off it else no one would bother funding businesses and innovations and you need many wealthy people in that and if you want Capitalists and rich people to invest millions across numerous companies then they need to be in a position where millions of pounds is just a drop in the ocean to them else they will not risk investing that much.

 

And this is not to mention the tens of thousands of jobs that investors and Capitalists create through this way too - this is why Capitalists create wealth a lot more efficiently than Governments do - and you need to allow them to have that element where thet can afford to lose millions in risky ventured and they can afford to invest in hundreds of companies at once as one or two of them will cover the losses on the other 98 or 99.

 

And what do you think will happen in the international market in 2017 (especially given Brexit) if we slap huge extra taxes on Capitalists and huge Corporations while also raising the mimumu. wage at such a huge rate - investors will just invest in companies elsewhere - in different countries where It's easier to make money. Unless this is done world wide at the same time (which is not feasable given how every natiomal economy is in a hugely different position of growth and has very different population densities, natural resources, climates etc. etc.) then you've got to be very naive to think it won't drive investors away.

 

Again, no one thinks Capitalism is perfect and doesn't have huge flaws - yes, It's shitty seeing the famous Capitalists like Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Warren Buffett and Mark Zuckerberg have all this money while millions live below the poverty line but you have to remember they create tens of thousands of jobs, they invest and buy companies which helps improve the lives of the many and they create both innovation and wealth at an international level much more efficiently than Governments can.

 

But I think Ed Miliband put it best that that it was the "least worst Economic system humans have come up with" to date. And that doesn't mean every Capitalisy country has succeeded either, but it's unquestionably pulled people out of poverty, into being able to afford food and improved the quality of life of the average individual far better than any other type of Economic system which humans have come up with so far (And that's not to say that humans won't come up with a better system in the future, especially given future technology, but neither nationalizing markets or mass wealth equality is the answer).

So unless 22,000 children die of poverty every day, we won't get electric cars?

 

 

 

[Guest]

Surely you take blank canvas, decide how you want the world to be and nake it that way?

If you start from the position that today is better than yesterday and we can't improve it any further because of x, y or z  then progress stops.

I particularly don't like the idea that we can't have a fairer society because greedy rich people won't pay their way if we don't have rules they like, which seems to be the right wing excuse for poverty. 

[Voll Blau]

1 hour ago, Foxin_mad said:

I think this is all subjective. My living standards were awful during the early 2000s, it is the only time I have ever found it hard to get a job. It was crap, house prices expanded stupidly so I could not afford to get one. Everything was built on a bubble. I am not seeing any official figures showing this being the most successful time ever evidenced.  If Labour had managed the economy properly we could have survived the recession better without spending £150 billion we didn't have, stop pedalling the 'global financial crisis' nonsense, some countries avoided the impact because they were not borrowing large amounts. Labour followed the Tory plan for the first few years and then started their debt binge.

 

People shouldn't be forced to pay huge amounts either. I agree people should pay tax, my point is that we should pay a flat rate, based on a higher income threshold.

 

Your third point again, this is just an opinion. More business and more jobs will increase revenue, the number of business has increased the number of jobs has too in the past 7 years. Increasing corporation tax to 25% or whatever will reduce the take in the long term, that is absolute fact. It will also reduce jobs and investment in the country at a time we need it most, it is an absolutely stupid idea. Labour never ever learn, don't bite the hand that feeds.

 

Corbyn is a nasty spiteful man.

 

I'm past caring now to be honest more and more people seem to be falling for this shit, let them have it. I don't expect to see any complaints when they inevitably **** it up and no one has a job, including those in the public sector when the money tree stops spewing money. At least we will all be equal! all equally poor! A true socialist utopia as always!

Your constant, boring and often baseless posts on here would appear to suggest otherwise...

[Sampson]

45 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said:

So unless 22,000 children die of poverty every day, we won't get electric cars?

 

 

 

*Sigh* If you're going to do such an obvious straw man you could at least read what I wrote.

 

Capitalism has unquestionably pulled people out of poverty far better than any other system we've ever designed has, because it's made food far cheaper and worth far less in labour hours for the average person. It's only 200 years ago we had Malthus suggesting if the population reached 1 billion it would catastrophic because humans would not have the food to support those numbers - because he did not count on the agricultural, servital and manufacturing innovation that allowed much more food to be sold for much cheaper and much less labour hours.

 

The modern Capitalist West is the only time in human history where more people are dying from obesity than from starvation. It's the time where least people are dying of starvation because of specialisation and innovation, because of Adam Smith.

 

45 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Yeah but we're talking about a few key sectors being nationalised, not the entire economy.

But what are these sectors? As I've said - yes, absolutely! It makes sense that sectors where innovation is not as important as the service provided such as health care, policing, defence and education to be nationalised, absolutely! But It's getting silly when you try and extend these things to things such as the railways.

Edited 27 September 2017 by Sampson

[Fox Ulike]

18 minutes ago, Sampson said:

*Sigh* If you're going to do such an obvious straw man you could at least read what I wrote.

 

Capitalism has unquestionably pulled people out of poverty far better than any other system we've ever designed has, because it's made food far cheaper and worth far less in labour hours for the average person. It's only 200 years ago we had Malthus suggesting if the population reached 1 billion it would catastrophic because humans would not have the food to support those numbers - because he did not count on the agricultural, servital and manufacturing innovation that allowed much more food to be sold for much cheaper and much less labour hours.

 

The modern Capitalist West is the only time in human history where more people are dying from obesity than from starvation. It's the time where least people are dying of starvation because of specialisation and innovation, because of Adam Smith.

 

 

 

I did read it - years ago. Perhaps from the same textbooks that you regurgitated it from.

 

You need to apply your learning into the real world, because everything they teach you has a practical application, and you can't learn Life from a textbook.

 

So, taking you 'into the field', as they say... UNICEF claim that 22,000 children die each day from poverty-related causes. Do you have an opinion that's not from a book you've read?  I don't think 'Wealth of Nations' has a chapter called 'Dead Children', so you're on your own.

 

[davieG]

51 minutes ago, Sampson said:

*Sigh* If you're going to do such an obvious straw man you could at least read what I wrote.

 

Capitalism has unquestionably pulled people out of poverty far better than any other system we've ever designed has, because it's made food far cheaper and worth far less in labour hours for the average person. It's only 200 years ago we had Malthus suggesting if the population reached 1 billion it would catastrophic because humans would not have the food to support those numbers - because he did not count on the agricultural, servital and manufacturing innovation that allowed much more food to be sold for much cheaper and much less labour hours.

 

The modern Capitalist West is the only time in human history where more people are dying from obesity than from starvation. It's the time where least people are dying of starvation because of specialisation and innovation, because of Adam Smith.

 

But what are these sectors? As I've said - yes, absolutely! It makes sense that sectors where innovation is not as important as the service provided such as health care, policing, defence and education to be nationalised, absolutely! But It's getting silly when you try and extend these things to things such as the railways.

I haven't noticed much innovation from the railway companies any development seems to be almost entirely funded by government or from abroad unless I've  missed something.

[Guest MattP]

Not often I say this but well done the new statesman, it's about time the left wing press started to stand up against the clickbait hate campaigns of fake news organisations like The Canary.

 

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/media/2017/09/canary-running-sexist-hate-campaign-against-laura-kuenssberg-clicks

[Sampson]

42 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said:

 

I did read it - years ago. Perhaps from the same textbooks that you regurgitated it from.

 

You need to apply your learning into the real world, because everything they teach you has a practical application, and you can't learn Life from a textbook.

 

So, taking you 'into the field', as they say... UNICEF claim that 22,000 children die each day from poverty-related causes. Do you have an opinion that's not from a book you've read?  I don't think 'Wealth of Nations' has a chapter called 'Dead Children', so you're on your own.

 

But if you've read it why are you just quoting a point which is ignoring everything I said? I don't understand what you're trying to say - that the system you are proposing will magically wipe this out when it hasn't before?

 

You asked why I think we need  a wealth inequality to create more innovation and I explained it to which you gave a completely unrelated point about dying children which has nothing to do with free market Capitalism. I even said that free market Capitalism hasn't worked in every instance but it has worked better than any other system and we have less poverty than any other system we've ever come up with (which is undoubtedly true).

 

What country do this children come from? Do they even live in free market Western Capitalist countries which have had time to develop? Or do a lot of them live in former Socialist and heavily Command Economy countries that have only just opened up some of their markets and many of their markets are still restricted like China, India, Indonesia, Vietnam, Venezuela, Russia, Libya, Zimbabwe, Nigeria, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia etc. etc. - and if they do, how is it in comparison to other countries which restrict the freedom of their markets? If so, what's your point as to why this is a failing of long term free markets and how is it related? Where have I claimed there isn't still poverty or that capitalism always works without failure- i haven't, but I've said that allowing Capitalists a free market and a fair Stock Market of which to invest in has shown to be a better way of pulling people out of poverty than has forcing wealth distribution.

 

If you want to believe it's all text book rhetoric then that's fine - but you think this is just guesswork? You don't think that this is in fact text book rhetoric because it's proven to be the best system we've honed thus far over thousands of years whereas forcing mass wealth redistribution and extra nationalisation (which have been tried plenty of the times in the past and not proven to be as effective) and that all the Economics and Historians who spend their lives studying this are all wrong?

Again, you're doing what Climate Change deniers do - you're ignoring the overwhelming expert mainstream view of Economists and Historians who give their life researching this stuff for your own personal ideological tendencies. Call me crazy, but I think I'll take the overwhelming conclusions of the Economists that free markets are far better wealth creators, allow for far more innovation and are far more efficient than nationalised or restricted ones any day of the week.

Edited 27 September 2017 by Sampson

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Sampson said:

But if you've read it why are you just quoting a point which is ignoring everything I said? I don't understand what you're trying to say - that the system you are proposing will magically wipe this out when it hasn't before?

 

You asked why I think we need  a wealth inequality to create more innovation and I explained it to which you gave a completely unrelated point about dying children which has nothing to do with free market Capitalism. I even said that free market Capitalism hasn't worked in every instance but it has worked better than any other system and we have less poverty than any other system we've ever come up with (which is undoubtedly true).

 

What country do this children come from? Do they even live in free market Western Capitalist countries which have had time to develop? Or do a lot of them live in former Socialist and heavily Command Economy countries that have only just opened up some of their markets and many of their markets are still restricted like China, India, Indonesia, Vietnam, Venezuela, Russia, Libya, Zimbabwe, Nigeria, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia etc. etc. - and if they do, how is it in comparison to other countries which restrict the freedom of their markets? If so, what's your point as to why this is a failing of long term free markets and how is it related? Where have I claimed there isn't still poverty or that capitalism always works without failure- i haven't, but I've said that allowing Capitalists a free market and a fair Stock Market of which to invest in has shown to be a better way of pulling people out of poverty than has forcing wealth distribution.

 

If you want to believe it's all text book rhetoric then that's fine - but you think this is just guesswork? You don't think that this is in fact text book rhetoric because it's proven to be the best system we've honed thus far over thousands of years whereas forcing mass wealth redistribution and extra nationalisation (which have been tried plenty of the times in the past and not proven to be as effective) and that all the Economics and Historians who spend their lives studying this are all wrong?

Again, you're doing what Climate Change deniers do - you're ignoring the overwhelming expert mainstream view of Economists and Historians who give their life researching this stuff for your own personal ideological tendencies. Call me crazy, but I think I'll take the overwhelming conclusions of the Economists that free markets are far better wealth creators, allow for far more innovation and are far more efficient than nationalised or restricted ones any day of the week.

If it wasn't for socialism we'd have no nhs, no national education system, no sick pay and a plethora of other beneficial things. 

 

There's no right answer in politics. Socialism has done good and bad in the past, much as rampant neo liberal capitalism has more recently. 

 

Free markets aren't all fun and games. They also force the reduction of cost which ultimately leads to business treating staff poorly. Whilst there are examples of good businesses, there are also many that display the attitude I'm talking about. We need ethical business and im not convinced that the current system leads to that. 

[Voll Blau]

2 hours ago, MattP said:

Not often I say this but well done the new statesman, it's about time the left wing press started to stand up against the clickbait hate campaigns of fake news organisations like The Canary.

 

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/media/2017/09/canary-running-sexist-hate-campaign-against-laura-kuenssberg-clicks

Absolute embarrassment of a publication. 

[Sampson]

1 hour ago, toddybad said:

If it wasn't for socialism we'd have no nhs, no national education system, no sick pay and a plethora of other beneficial things. 

 

There's no right answer in politics. Socialism has done good and bad in the past, much as rampant neo liberal capitalism has more recently. 

 

Free markets aren't all fun and games. They also force the reduction of cost which ultimately leads to business treating staff poorly. Whilst there are examples of good businesses, there are also many that display the attitude I'm talking about. We need ethical business and im not convinced that the current system leads to that. 

Of course! But that's also a huge false equivalency!

 

No one is saying Socialism and Capitalism haven't done good or bad or been successful or unsuccessful of course they have! So have Feudalism and Mercantalism but that doesn't mean they're equal and the issues arising from Socialism have proven to be way worse than those which have arisen from Capitalism.

 

Look, I don't think we're that far from each other here and Bernie Sanders bizarrely declaring Nordic countries as Socialist hasn't really helped the discussion in recent times from getting muddied when you're actually quite similar.

 

But of course there's a reason that, North Korea aside, almost every country in the world is neither pure Laissez Faire Capitalist or pure Command Economy Socialist state - it's not the 1920s anymore. But at the same time, there's a reason the countries with the best quality of life, the least amounts of starvation and the most well off populations (I.e. Western and Central Europe, North America, Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand etc.) are overwhelmingly Capitalist Economies which only leave essentials liie health care, education, police, fire service etc. to the Public Sector and have overwhelmingly free markets - checked and balanced with anti-monopoly laws, pro-competition laws etc.

 

Of course plenty of businesses treat staff poorly but you don't think some of things Corbyn suggests will make things worse? You think such a hike in minimum wage in a short space of time mixed with extra taxes for businesses at the exact moment we leave the biggest market in the world will actually make things better? Because to me all I can see is inflation rising, many will lose their jobs and many businesses having to downsize or go elsewhere as a result because businesses have to make that money back to keep growing somehow. If you want to do these things you do them gradually not as a huge overhaul as Corbyn and his last manifesto was suggesting.

 

I don't think anyone thinks Capitalism and free markets are perfect or that there aren't huge issues with it - but Nationalising needless stuff and trying to add a bunch of extra taxes to Capitalists and big businesses to give up money, hiking up minimum wage to £10 per hour in just 3 years just doesn't strike me as being sensible at all or anything like the answer to the problems with Capitalism - in fact they strike me as much worse and I think History has been a pretty good indicator that that is likely to be the case.

Edited 27 September 2017 by Sampson

[The Doctor]

4 hours ago, Sampson said:

*Sigh* If you're going to do such an obvious straw man you could at least read what I wrote.

 

Capitalism has unquestionably pulled people out of poverty far better than any other system we've ever designed has, because it's made food far cheaper and worth far less in labour hours for the average person. It's only 200 years ago we had Malthus suggesting if the population reached 1 billion it would catastrophic because humans would not have the food to support those numbers - because he did not count on the agricultural, servital and manufacturing innovation that allowed much more food to be sold for much cheaper and much less labour hours.

 

The modern Capitalist West is the only time in human history where more people are dying from obesity than from starvation. It's the time where least people are dying of starvation because of specialisation and innovation, because of Adam Smith.

 

But what are these sectors? As I've said - yes, absolutely! It makes sense that sectors where innovation is not as important as the service provided such as health care, policing, defence and education to be nationalised, absolutely! But It's getting silly when you try and extend these things to things such as the railways.

Tbf to FoxUlike, the point behind it is less strawman of the need for wealth inequality, and more a point of does it need to be this extreme - and the answer is no, it doesn't. There's a whole world in between the existence of wealth inequality (an inevitability of private enterprise) and what we have now, rampant wealth inequality meaning most are stuck in a system that consistently fails them. That chasm is what people who talk of solving wealth inequality look at in the main. Very few want to completely eradicate any pay disparity, but they look at a sliding scale where those at the top don't continue to grow faster than those at the bottom. Take the financial year 14/15 - £44bn was spent on family benefits, tax credits and income support for those in work, from a total government expenditure of £737.14bn, i.e. 5.96% of all government spending was on welfare for working families. At last count we're spending 42% of GDP, which would make that welfare spending on working families equivalent to 2.5% of GDP. In other words, NATO expects us to spend less on defence than the vaunted wealth creators expect us to spend subsidising their wage budget. Wealth inequality may be a necessarily evil, but the disparity doesn't have to be this extreme unless you completely missed the point of the film Wall Street and genuinely believe that greed is good spiel.

 

Spending calculations: http://visual.ons.gov.uk/welfare-spending/

Edited 27 September 2017 by The Doctor

[Guest MattP]

53 minutes ago, Voll Blau said:

Absolute embarrassment of a publication. 

Had a bit of a Google of the "pro-Corbyn blogger"  Steve Topple who wrote the article in the first place. He seems quite a character, a pattern developing with some of his viewpoints. 

 

[Guest]

49 minutes ago, Sampson said:

Of course! But that's also a huge false equivalency!

 

No one is saying Socialism and Capitalism haven't done good or bad or been successful or unsuccessful of course they have! So have Feudalism and Mercantalism but that doesn't mean they're equal and the issues arising from Socialism have proven to be way worse than those which have arisen from Capitalism.

 

Look, I don't think we're that far from each other here and Bernie Sanders bizarrely declaring Nordic countries as Socialist hasn't really helped the discussion in recent times from getting muddied when you're actually quite similar.

 

But of course there's a reason that, North Korea aside, almost every country in the world is neither pure Laissez Faire Capitalist or pure Command Economy Socialist state - it's not the 1920s anymore. But at the same time, there's a reason the countries with the best quality of life, the least amounts of starvation and the most well off populations (I.e. Western and Central Europe, North America, Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand etc.) are overwhelmingly Capitalist Economies which only leave essentials liie health care, education, police, fire service etc. to the Public Sector and have overwhelmingly free markets - checked and balanced with anti-monopoly laws, pro-competition laws etc.

 

Of course plenty of businesses treat staff poorly but you don't think some of things Corbyn suggests will make things worse? You think such a hike in minimum wage in a short space of time mixed with extra taxes for businesses at the exact moment we leave the biggest market in the world will actually make things better? Because to me all I can see is inflation rising, many will lose their jobs and many businesses having to downsize or go elsewhere as a result because businesses have to make that money back to keep growing somehow. If you want to do these things you do them gradually not as a huge overhaul as Corbyn and his last manifesto was suggesting.

 

I don't think anyone thinks Capitalism and free markets are perfect or that there aren't huge issues with it - but Nationalising needless stuff and trying to add a bunch of extra taxes to Capitalists and big businesses to give up money, hiking up minimum wage to £10 per hour in just 3 years just doesn't strike me as being sensible at all or anything like the answer to the problems with Capitalism - in fact they strike me as much worse and I think History has been a pretty good indicator that that is likely to be the case.

Nationalising energy, utilities and railways is in the national interest. If it went until other industries I'd probably agree but it doesn't. 

 

The Tory voters on here have assured me that the Tories proposed a £9 wage so there isn't much between them. 

 

The tax rises on business and the wealthy are relatively small.

 

Neo liberalism has given one or two generations fantastic opportunities at the expense of their children, grandchildren and fellow men. 

[Filberts lovechild]

I fear with silent approval of illegal strikes & nationalisation on the cards we'd have many more seasons of discontent under Labour not just Winter.

 

Another aspect is the whole Brexit debate, much of the vote swayed to brexit due to frustrations with uncontrolled immigration. First thing Labour will do is make the country a Mecca for financial asylum seekers.

[Carl the Llama]

2 hours ago, MattP said:

Had a bit of a Google of the "pro-Corbyn blogger"  Steve Topple who wrote the article in the first place. He seems quite a character, a pattern developing with some of his viewpoints. 

 

[big old picture]

Hitler would be proud. 

 

But let's not conflate being pro-Corbyn with being Corbyn approved much like you'd take issue with suggestions that racists supporting Ukip means Ukip supports racism.

[foxinexile]

9 hours ago, MattP said:

Had a bit of a Google of the "pro-Corbyn blogger"  Steve Topple who wrote the article in the first place. He seems quite a character, a pattern developing with some of his viewpoints. 

 

You'd hope that if he was a member of the party (I don't know if he is or not?), his membership would be revoked immediately. Very worrying if not. There seems to be a concerning theme that politicians, or those aligned to political parties, are expressing unsavoury views via twitter without real reprimand. Scottish Conservative Robert Davies tweeted in 2013 'In the interests of safety keep your loin cloths with you at all times. Spears go in the overhead locker' and 'No, I am not your lunch. I am a flight attendant' below a photo of a group of black people waiting to board a plane. That was a in 2013 and he was a councillor at the time and was rightly suspended. However, he's now been allowed back into the party on the basis of offering an 'unreserved apology' for his comments. Expressions like these and those of Topple have no place in politics (or society) across the spectrum.

Edited 28 September 2017 by foxinexile