Nigel Farage

[Voll Blau]

http://www.no2eu.com/

 

Think this is the only party on the left in the UK opposing the EU. They stood last time if I recall.

 

I'm personally undecided on Europe but I do believe the people of this country should be the ones to make that choice.

 

That said, I am in favour of the Schengen Agreement. Purely because it makes it a piece of piss to pass through the borders of Europe while you're half-cut.

[The Doctor]

It's ok Nick, Red Ed will save us. He understands normal people.

What sets Farage apart? Maybe people actuality like the fact he made his own money and had a real job.

You keep supporting the excessive taxing the poor to pay for EU politicians more right wing than Farage to drive around in limos. Very liberal and fair of you.

He's the son of a stockbroker who went to public school and has been in politics since - his background is no different to that of clegg, Cameron or milliband.

[Sir Fynwy]

He's the son of a stockbroker who went to public school and has been in politics since - his background is no different to that of clegg, Cameron or milliband.

He also smokes fags (so does Clegg), drinks beer (so do the others) but he is different because he has no real policies or party manifesto.

Let's change Europe by sitting in the corner with our fingers in our ears.

[Alf Bentley]

I'm saying those on the Tony Benn line of politics are the idiots who no doubt disagree with the whole institution but wouldn't vote against it because of the connection to the right. They are idiots.

Of course I realise a lot of people support it and will defend it, as I've said before I thought it was actually a good idea when we voted for a common market and I would still support that. What a lot can't support though is the open borders, single currency and economic union with weaker eastern nations thst can only lower our own standards over time.

Of course you support the EU, you're not a low paid unskilled worker who will be effected. Even for a Lib Dem you have an incredible hypocrisy towards the weakest in society, at least the politicians try to pretend they care about them.

 

Opinions about the EU differ on the left as they do on the right. Benn remained anti-EU and I'm sure his supporters are still anti-EU. I saw Benn as someone who stirred up useful thought and debate, not a great political or economic analyst.

 

Others on the left have always been pro-EU, despite its many flaws. Even in 1983, when Labour campaigned for withdrawal from the (then) EEC, it was probably too late to be "left-wing in one country" - because capitalism/the economy was going global, so politics/regulation needs to go global. Unlike a single country, the EU has the international clout to help achieve that...though so far it is mainly serving the interests of global capital, and democratic accountability is a major problem. Maybe some day UN institutions, like the ILO, will exert more power globally, but that seems a long way off.

 

Given the globalisation of investment, finance and capital ownership, the existence of tax havens and the development of instant telecommunications, introducing left-wing policies in one country is completely unrealistic. It's possible to tinker at the edges (capitalism with a bit more of a safety net) as New Labour did - and it would still be possible to have a right-wing UK outside the EU: low tax, high inequality, crap public services, cheap-labour trade deals, redistribution from people to corporations, poor job safety & environmental standards, an exploitative attitude to immigration etc. That's the deal on offer from UKIP and the Tories (though the Tory leadership sits on the fence fearing that really going anti-EU might see them out of office). That's not the sort of society I want to see here...a bit like the Brazil or Mexico of Europe. Within a few decades, I could see us ending up as a sort of right-wing mirror-image of Cuba: an under-developed offshore tax haven for international capitalists with massive inequality, and our own gated communities and very British favelas.

 

Inevitably, cheaper labour costs drag investment/jobs in many sectors to developing countries. That's difficult, but the process needs to be regulated internationally so that it benefits everyone. It shouldn't be opposed outright, but neither should it be dealt with by retreating into a Bennite bunker - nor by reducing our pay and conditions to protect the profits of large corporations so as to persuade them not to run off to Vietnam or wherever.

 

I'm a bit less pro-EU recently because the EU has moved more to the free-market right (though still less so than the Tories or UKIP). Previously, the idea was that the richer countries (including the UK) would help the poorer countries (the Southern European "PIGS") to develop through investment/redistribution - and this would benefit everyone in the long run. For a long time, that worked, corruption notwithstanding....but now there's less cash to splash, it's all a bit more difficult.

 

But we must persist in making politics continental and then global, so that it can exert some influence over global capital/economics. What's the alternative, as we can't all be high-value-added R&D boffins? Having our societies engage in a race to the bottom with Mexico or Bangladesh?! Because if that's where more money is to be made, that's where capital will go. Regulation is needed - and it needs to be international.

[Webbo]

 

 

But we must persist in making politics continental and then global, so that it can exert some influence over global capital/economics. What's the alternative, as we can't all be high-value-added R&D boffins? Having our societies engage in a race to the bottom with Mexico or Bangladesh?! Because if that's where more money is to be made, that's where capital will go. Regulation is needed - and it needs to be international.

Regulation wont stop that. we'll only make ourselves less competitive while non European countries invest in Mexico and Bangladesh , undercutting  us, stealing  our markets.

 

Anyway, cheap labour is the only asset  some of these third world countries have. You either pay them what we pay here, in which case why bother, why not make things here? Or you can stop companies investing there condemning them to eternal poverty. 

[Alf Bentley]

Regulation wont stop that. we'll only make ourselves less competitive while non European countries invest in Mexico and Bangladesh , undercutting  us, stealing  our markets.

 

Anyway, cheap labour is the only asset  some of these third world countries have. You either pay them what we pay here, in which case why bother, why not make things here? Or you can stop companies investing there condemning them to eternal poverty. 

 

As I've already said (see below), I agree that it would be selfish and counter-productive in the long-term to try to obstruct the movement of some sectors to cheaper labour countries. It's much more beneficial for the whole world if developing countries are able to develop so that they enjoy better living standards - and the West enjoys better trading opportunities.

 

However, I completely disagree that international regulation has no part to play in ensuring that process is as smooth as possible, and beneficial to all. That's the point of international trade deals, whether they're signed by individual countries or by regional blocs like the EU. International trade deals can and do cover issues like the gradual removal of barriers to trade, humanitarian standards (e.g. no imports made through child/slave labour), access to developing markets for our exports in return for imports gaining access to Western markets, agreements not to destroy the environment etc.

 

I appreciate that such deals have been far from perfect, but this sort of regulation certainly has the potential to be much better than just leaving an unregulated global market for mega-corporations that will seek the highest profits they can get, caring little what this does to living standards in the developing world or the West. I can't see much wealth "trickling down" to Joe Public from that. Capitalism is useful but it is certainly not benign without regulation - and the EU is in a much stronger position than the UK alone to negotiate deals beneficial to Joe Public as it represents a much bigger market for imports and exports.

 

Of course, this is not of much concern to the Tory Right or UKIP. They want an offshore Fortress Britain acting in the interests of big business, with cheap imports from developing countries and not too many questions asked. They also want to undercut other European countries as a low-cost, regulation-free, low tax country that condemns large numbers of its people to squalor so as to generate the gravity-defying "trickle-up" of wealth to big business shareholders and executives. Can't see the other European countries signing up to that deal, though, so hopefully it's just a lot of populist hot air and far right posturing to win votes. 

 

 

Inevitably, cheaper labour costs drag investment/jobs in many sectors to developing countries. That's difficult, but the process needs to be regulated internationally so that it benefits everyone. It shouldn't be opposed outright, but neither should it be dealt with by retreating into a Bennite bunker - nor by reducing our pay and conditions to protect the profits of large corporations so as to persuade them not to run off to Vietnam or wherever.

 

[MooseBreath]

Previously, the idea was that the richer countries (including the UK) would help the poorer countries (the Southern European "PIGS") to develop through investment/redistribution - and this would benefit everyone in the long run. For a long time, that worked, corruption notwithstanding....but now there's less cash to splash, it's all a bit more difficult.

On what basis are you saying "for a long time, that worked?" All that happened is that debt built up and up until it resulted in a cataclysmic economic implosion that has destroyed prospects for entire generations of young people across europe. I can't see how you can say "it worked" at all when the result has been monumental failure; destruction on an unprecedented scale. If the catastrophic obliteration of economies is what happens when wealth redistribution 'works', by golly I'd hate to see what happens when it fails.

[Nick]

cataclysmic

economic implosion

destroyed entire generations across europe

monumental failure

destruction

unprecedented scale

catastrophic obliteration of economies

by golly.

 

By golly indeed.

[Alf Bentley]

On what basis are you saying "for a long time, that worked?" All that happened is that debt built up and up until it resulted in a cataclysmic economic implosion that has destroyed prospects for entire generations of young people across europe. I can't see how you can say "it worked" at all when the result has been monumental failure; destruction on an unprecedented scale. If the catastrophic obliteration of economies is what happens when wealth redistribution 'works', by golly I'd hate to see what happens when it fails.

 

I'm saying "for a long time, that worked" because as recently as the 1970s, Portugal, Ireland, Greece & Spain were seriously under-developed countries, which were under quasi-fascist dictatorships in several cases. All benefited greatly from EU membership, seeing major increases in their living standards, significant economic convergence and trade growth with Northern Europe and the consolidation of democracy. This also boosted trade and investment opportunities for Northern Europe. Not everything was perfect, of course, but it was a pretty successful ongoing process.

 

That was derailed by the 2008 global financial crisis - a crisis that started in the American banking system but spread worldwide due to the inter-connected nature of the global economy - and to the failure by governments around the world to adequately regulate global capital/financial flows, starting with Bush and Blair (though the Tories would've done the same).

 

Yes, failings in Europe exacerbated the problem. Allowing Greece to effectively defraud its way into the Euro is a prime example - a massive failure of EU regulation. In countries like Spain and Ireland, however, the "European debt problem" largely resulted from governments bailing out banks that had provided irresponsible lending, fueling a property bubble that burst when the global capitalist economy almost imploded....so, yet again, the failure to adequately regulate international capitalism is a major factor....not to mention it being the fundamental cause of the whole global crisis in the first place!!!

 

This is precisely why I'm instinctively pro-EU, provided that it is trying to regulate global capitalism on behalf of the people of this continent, rather than letting capital roam (or often whizz) around the globe in search of ever greater profit and sod the consequences for the real people living on that globe! The EU has massive flaws (e.g. democratic accountability) and may be heading in a direction that I'll like less (less redistribution/investment, more facilitation of free markets for private capital) - and that you should like more! It's also only a partial solution - regional, not global - but, in the absence of credible global alternatives and in view of the weakness of the UN, it's about the best option we've got for regulating the inclination of global capital to make its owners/executives very rich and whole swathes of the population, including many of its employees, very poor.

[Rincewind]

What Alf says.

[I am Rod Hull]

What Alf says.

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOhXpmozpbE

[Rincewind]

[The God Emperor]

I'm saying "for a long time, that worked" because as recently as the 1970s, Portugal, Ireland, Greece & Spain were seriously under-developed countries, which were under quasi-fascist dictatorships in several cases. All benefited greatly from EU membership, seeing major increases in their living standards, significant economic convergence and trade growth with Northern Europe and the consolidation of democracy. This also boosted trade and investment opportunities for Northern Europe. Not everything was perfect, of course, but it was a pretty successful ongoing process.

 

The EU was successful in this because it was about promoting open trade, it was different to bureaucratic monstrosity it is today. 

 

That was derailed by the 2008 global financial crisis - a crisis that started in the American banking system but spread worldwide due to the inter-connected nature of the global economy - and to the failure by governments around the world to adequately regulate global capital/financial flows, starting with Bush and Blair (though the Tories would've done the same).

 

I always find it strange that people blame lack of regulation for the financial crisis when Banking is one of the most regulated industries we have, only health care, education and energy surpass it (and look at the condition they are in). If it was true that leaning things to the market leads to disaster then we would have been bailing out Apple computers and Microsoft (although 'free-er' than banking they are still not untouched by the hand of government). The US Government through it's regulation was promoting the bad business practices that led to the financial crisis. European Governments were doing exactly the same thing.

 

Yes, failings in Europe exacerbated the problem. Allowing Greece to effectively defraud its way into the Euro is a prime example - a massive failure of EU regulation. In countries like Spain and Ireland, however, the "European debt problem" largely resulted from governments bailing out banks that had provided irresponsible lending, fueling a property bubble that burst when the global capitalist economy almost imploded....so, yet again, the failure to adequately regulate international capitalism is a major factor....not to mention it being the fundamental cause of the whole global crisis in the first place!!!

 

 

This is precisely why I'm instinctively pro-EU, provided that it is trying to regulate global capitalism on behalf of the people of this continent, rather than letting capital roam (or often whizz) around the globe in search of ever greater profit and sod the consequences for the real people living on that globe! The EU has massive flaws (e.g. democratic accountability) and may be heading in a direction that I'll like less (less redistribution/investment, more facilitation of free markets for private capital) - and that you should like more! It's also only a partial solution - regional, not global - but, in the absence of credible global alternatives and in view of the weakness of the UN, it's about the best option we've got for regulating the inclination of global capital to make its owners/executives very rich and whole swathes of the population, including many of its employees, very poor.

 

You mention capitalism a lot in these last 2 paragraphs. Capitalism has not existed in Europe or the US for 100 years now. You don't need to regulate markets, every time that has been done it has never ended well, see financial crisis, great depression, Britain in  the 70's etc. Leaving them alone however can turn a fishing village on a rock in the ocean into a city with more skyscrapers than New York and can turn a third rate ex British colony into an industrial super power with a bounty of opportunity for those living there.

Like I said the financial crisis had nothing to do with capitalism, more a failure of fascism. 

 

[purpleronnie]

Bulgarians and Romanians working in the UK has fallen by 4,000, not quite the 29 million increase ukip predicted could come here.  or maybe they're all claiming benefits...oh yeah that must be the case.

[Finnegan]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ukip-blames-london-election-performance-on-difficulty-appealing-to-the-educated-and-cultural-9423200.html

 

 

"Ukip blames London election performance on difficulty appealing to the 'well-educated'"

 

[Webbo]

Bulgarians and Romanians working in the UK has fallen by 4,000, not quite the 29 million increase ukip predicted could come here.  or maybe they're all claiming benefits...oh yeah that must be the case.

Labour says the government still has work to do in addressing people's "legitimate concerns" over immigration levels.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21523319

 

I hope everyone will be condemning these racists and scaremongerers.

[Alf Bentley]

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOhXpmozpbE

 

 

Alf G is alive and well and standing for UKIP in Basildon!

 

Funny to think that his son-in-law there (in the armchair) was Tony Blair's father-in-law in real life (Cherie's Dad)...

[MooseBreath]

I'm saying "for a long time, that worked" because as recently as the 1970s, Portugal, Ireland, Greece & Spain were seriously under-developed countries, which were under quasi-fascist dictatorships in several cases. All benefited greatly from EU membership, seeing major increases in their living standards, significant economic convergence and trade growth with Northern Europe and the consolidation of democracy. This also boosted trade and investment opportunities for Northern Europe. Not everything was perfect, of course, but it was a pretty successful ongoing process.

That was derailed by the 2008 global financial crisis - a crisis that started in the American banking system but spread worldwide due to the inter-connected nature of the global economy - and to the failure by governments around the world to adequately regulate global capital/financial flows, starting with Bush and Blair (though the Tories would've done the same).

Yes, failings in Europe exacerbated the problem. Allowing Greece to effectively defraud its way into the Euro is a prime example - a massive failure of EU regulation. In countries like Spain and Ireland, however, the "European debt problem" largely resulted from governments bailing out banks that had provided irresponsible lending, fueling a property bubble that burst when the global capitalist economy almost imploded....so, yet again, the failure to adequately regulate international capitalism is a major factor....not to mention it being the fundamental cause of the whole global crisis in the first place!!!

This is precisely why I'm instinctively pro-EU, provided that it is trying to regulate global capitalism on behalf of the people of this continent, rather than letting capital roam (or often whizz) around the globe in search of ever greater profit and sod the consequences for the real people living on that globe! The EU has massive flaws (e.g. democratic accountability) and may be heading in a direction that I'll like less (less redistribution/investment, more facilitation of free markets for private capital) - and that you should like more! It's also only a partial solution - regional, not global - but, in the absence of credible global alternatives and in view of the weakness of the UN, it's about the best option we've got for regulating the inclination of global capital to make its owners/executives very rich and whole swathes of the population, including many of its employees, very poor.

Certainly no surprise that capitalism-driven increased trade helped to improve living standards in those countries. But I'm not sure you can credit the EU for spreading capitalism. It tends to spread anyway, you just need to look at the ample evidence of global emerging markets in recent decades who have experienced incredible growth in wealth and living standards thanks to capitalism, despite being nowhere near the eu.

I'm also a bit confused by the apparent contradictions in this post. You seem to be in favour of wealthy capitalist countries joining up with poor non-capitalist countries in order that the poor countries can reach in and grab a share of capitalism's success while being helped to build their own capitalism-driven growth, which would appear almost like a hymn to the beauty and amazing wealth-creation abilities of capitalism, but then you go on to criticise it. If your support of the eu is ultimately down to the existence of strong, wealthy capitalist countries who are able to help the poorer countries, then where are you without capitalism? Poor countries helping poor countries to become even poorer?

[Alf Bentley]

 

 

I always find it strange that people blame lack of regulation for the financial crisis when Banking is one of the most regulated industries we have, only health care, education and energy surpass it (and look at the condition they are in). [...] The US Government through it's regulation was promoting the bad business practices that led to the financial crisis. European Governments were doing exactly the same thing.

 

If banking is one of the most regulated industries, it sure as hell was regulated inadequately or inappropriately leading up to 2008. It was the banks, greedy for ever more cash, that chose to lend inappropriately on sub-prime mortgages and to invent all sorts of dodgy financial derivatives, almost destroying the global economy, but it was a lack of proper regulation that allowed those bad business practices to proceed, as you say. I quite agree that the US and European governments, and the EU share in the blame for this regulatory failure.

 

You mention capitalism a lot in these last 2 paragraphs. Capitalism has not existed in Europe or the US for 100 years now. You don't need to regulate markets, every time that has been done it has never ended well, see financial crisis, great depression, Britain in  the 70's etc. Leaving them alone however can turn a fishing village on a rock in the ocean into a city with more skyscrapers than New York and can turn a third rate ex British colony into an industrial super power with a bounty of opportunity for those living there.

Like I said the financial crisis had nothing to do with capitalism, more a failure of fascism. 

 

You've lost me here!

Oxford English Dictionary:

"Capitalism": "The possession of capital or wealth; a system in which private capital or wealth is used in the production or distribution of goods; the dominance of private owners of capital and of production for profit".

"Fascism": "[...] A [...] nationalist and authoritarian movement [...] loosely right-wing authoritarianism"

 

Based on those definitions, I'd say that practically the whole of the world is dominated by capitalism, for better and for worse, but there's very little fascism around, in Europe at least, though there's a lot of democratic unaccountability at  both national and EU level. More like corporatist autocracy than fascism, though. An upsurge of fascism in the coming years seems quite likely, though.

 

Re. The financial crisis, the Great Depression & Britain in the 70s, a combination of structural problems and/or inadequate regulation played a major part in all those events. The idea that the 1929 Wall Street Crash, the 1970s OPEC oil price hike and the 2008 collapse of Lehman's were all caused by unnecessary regulation is, frankly, utterly ridiculous!

 

 

 

Certainly no surprise that capitalism-driven increased trade helped to improve living standards in those countries. But I'm not sure you can credit the EU for spreading capitalism. It tends to spread anyway, you just need to look at the ample evidence of global emerging markets in recent decades who have experienced incredible growth in wealth and living standards thanks to capitalism, despite being nowhere near the eu.

I'm also a bit confused by the apparent contradictions in this post. You seem to be in favour of wealthy capitalist countries joining up with poor non-capitalist countries in order that the poor countries can reach in and grab a share of capitalism's success while being helped to build their own capitalism-driven growth, which would appear almost like a hymn to the beauty and amazing wealth-creation abilities of capitalism, but then you go on to criticise it. If your support of the eu is ultimately down to the existence of strong, wealthy capitalist countries who are able to help the poorer countries, then where are you without capitalism? Poor countries helping poor countries to become even poorer?

 

I agree that some of the improvement in living standards in Southern Europe would probably have happened regardless of the EU, through capitalist investment and trade, once the dictatorships fell. However, the EU did contribute a lot as well through funds for investment in infrastructure, opportunities for growth through free trade and redistribution (regional/social funds) that allowed those countries to adapt - imperfectly - from backward nations still over-focused on small-scale agriculture/fishing etc to more developed economies producing higher added value.

 

In some utopia that doesn't yet exist, I'd like to see a global economy that moved away from capitalism, with its need for ever more growth, profits, concentration of economic power and wealth, consumption and environmental destruction in favour of an economy focused on quality of life, not standard of living. That's certainly not about to happen as very few people support it. I've also little idea how we'd get from capitalism to a greener, quality-of-life society/economy, though I'm sure some experts would find a way if there was the political/democratic will....but that isn't the case (yet). I recognise that.

 

So, I see the benefits of capitalism - increased living standards over many decades (though I'm not sure that will continue), with all the extra opportunities that brings. But I also see the negatives - growing inequality, over-consumption of resources, social disharmony, environmental destruction etc, so I criticise them. I certainly wouldn't call for the overthrow of capitalism (I'm not a revolutionary - revolution mainly leads to dictatorship), but in the short-term we need mechanisms to regulate (not control) capitalism so as to ensure that it benefits global society as a whole, not just those who own or manage the capital. In the long-term, I struggle to see how capitalism can continue without consuming all our global resources and destroying human civilisation, which is a pretty big downside! I know that technological innovations on behalf of capitalism can offer some solutions, for better and worse (GM foods, biotech, fracking etc), but that all seems a massive gamble....and in the meantime, what sort of a society are we building, based on stress, grabbing, consumption, discord and inequality?

[The God Emperor]

If banking is one of the most regulated industries, it sure as hell was regulated inadequately or inappropriately leading up to 2008. It was the banks, greedy for ever more cash, that chose to lend inappropriately on sub-prime mortgages and to invent all sorts of dodgy financial derivatives, almost destroying the global economy, but it was a lack of proper regulation that allowed those bad business practices to proceed, as you say. I quite agree that the US and European governments, and the EU share in the blame for this regulatory failure.

 

It's not that it was regulated inadequately, it didn't need to be regulated in the first place. If there were no regulations in place (with the exception of laws against fraud) than none of the things that caused the crash would have happened. Without bail outs to fall back on or government regulations, the banks would have been fully exposed to the market and in the market lending money to people who can't afford to pay you back is not a way to make a profit. The bad business practices that caused the crisis would not have been adopted in a free market because they would not be profitable, they are only profitable if government makes them profitable. 

 

You've lost me here!

Oxford English Dictionary:

"Capitalism": "The possession of capital or wealth; a system in which private capital or wealth is used in the production or distribution of goods; the dominance of private owners of capital and of production for profit".

"Fascism": "[...] A [...] nationalist and authoritarian movement [...] loosely right-wing authoritarianism"

 

Based on those definitions, I'd say that practically the whole of the world is dominated by capitalism, for better and for worse, but there's very little fascism around, in Europe at least, though there's a lot of democratic unaccountability at  both national and EU level. More like corporatist autocracy than fascism, though. An upsurge of fascism in the coming years seems quite likely, though.

 

Re. The financial crisis, the Great Depression & Britain in the 70s, a combination of structural problems and/or inadequate regulation played a major part in all those events. The idea that the 1929 Wall Street Crash, the 1970s OPEC oil price hike and the 2008 collapse of Lehman's were all caused by unnecessary regulation is, frankly, utterly ridiculous!

 

After I posted I thought that my definitions would have caused confusion  . Capitalism is not just about the means of production being privately owned, it needs to be controlled privately as well for there to be capitalism. I define fascism as a system where the government does not own but controls the means of production, there is private ownership and some competition between businesses but that does not make it capitalist. In hindsight copratism or cronyism would have been better terms but I like using fascism and I'm sticking with it!    

 

the collapse of Lehman's I have already explained. The wall street crash was not caused by regulation, but the great depression is more than just the wall street crash. The wall street crash was a bubble bursting that caused a recession, a garden variety recession that the US where starting to come out of until the state intervened. Tax increases, the errors the FED made, increasing import tariffs, the new deal maintaining high prices of goods as well as making labour more expensive and just general state harassment of business made the US fall right back into an even worse recession.

OPEC is a government created and backed cartel so the energy crisis was a failure of government not the market. 

 

     

[lavrentis]

UKIP won't be able to win some parts of London probably for the same reason it won't win some parts of Leicester. I don't think they attract the minority vote.

[MooseBreath]

"I've also little idea how we'd get from capitalism to a greener, quality-of-life society/economy"

Why do we need to move away from capitalism to attain more focus on quality of life and green society? There's no more efficient system than capitalism at addressing aggregate demand. All capitalism does is provide the products and services people choose to want in return for a price they choose whether or not to pay.

If people don't want to feed the corporations they don't have to. You can already bypass the corporate energy suppliers by buying your energy from smaller sustainable suppliers. You can bypass banks by getting your finance from peer to peer lenders. You don't even have to drink coffee in starbucks if you don't want to. You can buy your food from independent suppliers. You can choose to work less hours if you're happy with the consequent lowered reward. And so on.

Having those choices is the most important thing, and capitalism provides choice in abundance. The only other way to do it would be to give someone the power to choose what everybody else is allowed to do, and I think we can all see the problem with that.

[leicsmac]

"I've also little idea how we'd get from capitalism to a greener, quality-of-life society/economy"

Why do we need to move away from capitalism to attain more focus on quality of life and green society? There's no more efficient system than capitalism at addressing aggregate demand. All capitalism does is provide the products and services people choose to want in return for a price they choose whether or not to pay.

If people don't want to feed the corporations they don't have to. You can already bypass the corporate energy suppliers by buying your energy from smaller sustainable suppliers. You can bypass banks by getting your finance from peer to peer lenders. You don't even have to drink coffee in starbucks if you don't want to. You can buy your food from independent suppliers. You can choose to work less hours if you're happy with the consequent lowered reward. And so on.

Having those choices is the most important thing, and capitalism provides choice in abundance. The only other way to do it would be to give someone the power to choose what everybody else is allowed to do, and I think we can all see the problem with that.

 

If any of those suppliers are within reasonable distance of you in order to use them, haven't been put out of business by a larger corporation undercutting them, and you're willing to pay the extra money involved as there is no economy of scale or government subsidy to lower the charges.

 

Which, I rather suspect, is why people 'choose' to use the corporations - people want the cheapest service, the corporations provide it, and smaller suppliers will never get a reasonable market share because the market is already cornered. Unless they have a ridiculous amount of money to spend on marketing and resources to start with.

 

We don't have a true capitalist system now...if we did government bureaucrats and the leading corporations in finance and other essential resources would be a check against each other, rather than in bed with each other. 

[MooseBreath]

If any of those suppliers are within reasonable distance of you in order to use them, haven't been put out of business by a larger corporation undercutting them, and you're willing to pay the extra money involved as there is no economy of scale or government subsidy to lower the charges.

Which, I rather suspect, is why people 'choose' to use the corporations - people want the cheapest service, the corporations provide it, and smaller suppliers will never get a reasonable market share because the market is already cornered. Unless they have a ridiculous amount of money to spend on marketing and resources to start with.

Alternative energy suppliers are available to anyone with a phone line. Likewise peer to peer finance, which can be cheaper than banks. Every town and city has alternative suppliers of food within easy reach. The choice not to drink coffee from starbucks or buy consumer products in general isn't location dependent at all. People could direct pretty much all of their spending away from big corporations if they wanted to. But they don't because it might cost a bit more and they're not so bothered by corporations that they're willing to pay the extra. That's their choice, so who is anyone else to tell them that they are wrong?

[Finnaldo]

Found this mildly amusing