stourbridgefox Posted 21 May 2012 Posted 21 May 2012 I wish I could do the multi quote thing. Right. Many people in the Soviet Bloc wanted the end of it. This was mainly do to American cultural imperialism which made it appear that everyone in a capitalist system was wealthy. Many are now realising that in some ways they were better off with communism, mainly for the reasons which I have stated. There is no propaganda, I have come to my own conclusions partly by study but also by experiencing the Soviet Bloc with my own eyes. I will have to whisper this. Many union demands in the 70s were outrageous and unions did need a reality check. However, we still need to know what unions have done for us in the past and not throw away the baby with the bath water. It is true that Thatcher killed manufacturing in this country. By applying monetary policy at a time of recession she effectively destroyed demand. I am not just talking about the state owned companies but also smaller privately owned ones. This is very similar to what is happening now. Public sector workers are losing their jobs which reduces demand for private sector products and services. Unemployment was a problem but it wasn't 3 million was it? I don't think it is fair to blame solely the Labour Party for the IMF loan. The economy was struggling regardless of which party was in charge. In fact, if my memory serves me correctly, the IMF loan was one of the first things Callaghan had to deal with on entering office. In other words, the previous government and governments have to take most of the blame. Did you ever go to a hospital in the 80s? Did you go to school in the 80s? Did I not say that monetary policy was reasonable during a boom? Keynesian economics is the answer during recessions. Simples. Anyways...I'm going to walk my dogs.
Guest MattP Posted 21 May 2012 Posted 21 May 2012 Good point! Or any of the Scandinavian countries for that matter. If you ignore the 7 quid a pint and highest suicide rate in Europe.....
21st Century Fox Posted 21 May 2012 Posted 21 May 2012 If you ignore the 7 quid a pint and highest suicide rate in Europe..... That's a myth and don't they attribute it to seasonal affective disorder.
The Doctor Posted 21 May 2012 Posted 21 May 2012 If you ignore the 7 quid a pint and highest suicide rate in Europe..... That's the result of spending half their year in constant darkness - much like their (frankly brilliant) metal scene.
21st Century Fox Posted 21 May 2012 Posted 21 May 2012 According to WHO Switzerland, Croatia, Belgium, Finland, France, Austria, Poland, Czech Republic, Sweden, Bulgaria, and Romania rank higher than Norway.
l444ry Posted 21 May 2012 Posted 21 May 2012 "Absolute bollocks. unemployment was already going up before Mrs T came into office". Stourbridge Fox is right Webbo. You're rewriting history again...... [media=] [/media]
Webbo Posted 21 May 2012 Posted 21 May 2012 "Absolute bollocks. unemployment was already going up before Mrs T came into office". Stourbridge Fox is right Webbo. You're rewriting history again...... [media=] [/media] So one person's opinion , that he admits he's not sure if it's true, is fact?
l444ry Posted 21 May 2012 Posted 21 May 2012 So one person's opinion , that he admits he's not sure if it's true, is fact? But that was Thatcher's economic advisor!!
Webbo Posted 21 May 2012 Posted 21 May 2012 But that was Thatcher's economic advisor!! An advisor. Are you saying that unemployment wasn't going up or we didn't need a massive loan to make ends meet?Are you saying that the nationalised industries weren't losing money hand over fist?
l444ry Posted 21 May 2012 Posted 21 May 2012 An advisor. Are you saying that unemployment wasn't going up or we didn't need a massive loan to make ends meet?Are you saying that the nationalised industries weren't losing money hand over fist? I'm saying that blaming the Labour government for reaping the devastation caused by the Barber Boom is rewriting history. And by the way, the loan was not totally drawn down or needed because the Treasury mandarins had got their figures wrong which led Healey to run to the IMF.......now there's a surprise!!
davieG Posted 21 May 2012 Author Posted 21 May 2012 An advisor. Are you saying that unemployment wasn't going up or we didn't need a massive loan to make ends meet?Are you saying that the nationalised industries weren't losing money hand over fist? How many of these denationalised industries are still receiving subsidies whilst paying out to shareholders? Seems to me like out of frying pan into the fire only now some individuals profit from it.
MooseBreath Posted 21 May 2012 Posted 21 May 2012 Ok, a few points. First of all, it depends on how you view living standards. Socialist or Communist countries did a very good job of providing for people's basic needs. People had good healthcare, education, transport and a guarantee of a job. Capitalism provides consumer products, which is actually why it appears to provide better living standards. In the USA, there are a huge range of consumer products available, but 40 million people live below the poverty line. My judgement is that people's needs are more important than their shopping needs. How do you reconcile the fact that life expectancy - surely one of the most fundamental basic needs - has risen massively beyond anyone's wildest dreams in line with capatalism?
Webbo Posted 21 May 2012 Posted 21 May 2012 How many of these denationalised industries are still receiving subsidies whilst paying out to shareholders? Seems to me like out of frying pan into the fire only now some individuals profit from it. If they are still going then they haven't been destroyed. I think the OP was talking about the steel, shipbuilding or even car making industries that were devastated by emerging countries undercutting us and the restrictive practises and shear greed of the unions. To pretend that Mrs Thatcher destroyed good industries for spite is ridiculous.
Jon the Hat Posted 21 May 2012 Posted 21 May 2012 If they are still going then they haven't been destroyed. I think the OP was talking about the steel, shipbuilding or even car making industries that were devastated by emerging countries undercutting us and the restrictive practises and shear greed of the unions. To pretend that Mrs Thatcher destroyed good industries for spite is ridiculous. Socialists are ridiculous though. Most of them grow out of it eventually.
breadandcheese Posted 21 May 2012 Posted 21 May 2012 I wish I could do the multi quote thing. Right. Many people in the Soviet Bloc wanted the end of it. This was mainly do to American cultural imperialism which made it appear that everyone in a capitalist system was wealthy. Many are now realising that in some ways they were better off with communism, mainly for the reasons which I have stated. There is no propaganda, I have come to my own conclusions partly by study but also by experiencing the Soviet Bloc with my own eyes. In our lifetime we have two perfect examples of how much rubbish that is. Germany was divided in two between East and West. The same people with the same history and cultural attitude to work. The majority of commentators assumed that the communist East and capitalist West were of a comparable economic development with a similar standard of living. When the wall came down, the gulf in standard of living was massive. A social experiment between communist east and capitalist west Germany. The same is true for North and South Korea with famines in the communist country. I will have to whisper this. Many union demands in the 70s were outrageous and unions did need a reality check. However, we still need to know what unions have done for us in the past and not throw away the baby with the bath water. It is true that Thatcher killed manufacturing in this country. By applying monetary policy at a time of recession she effectively destroyed demand. I am not just talking about the state owned companies but also smaller privately owned ones. This is very similar to what is happening now. Public sector workers are losing their jobs which reduces demand for private sector products and services. Unemployment was a problem but it wasn't 3 million was it? I don't think it is fair to blame solely the Labour Party for the IMF loan. The economy was struggling regardless of which party was in charge. In fact, if my memory serves me correctly, the IMF loan was one of the first things Callaghan had to deal with on entering office. In other words, the previous government and governments have to take most of the blame. Did you ever go to a hospital in the 80s? Did I not say that monetary policy was reasonable during a boom? Keynesian economics is the answer during recessions. Simples. Anyways...I'm going to walk my dogs. Monetarist economists would differ in your opinion of remedy to a recession. The Austrian school would have a different opinion.
l444ry Posted 21 May 2012 Posted 21 May 2012 In our lifetime we have two perfect examples of how much rubbish that is. Germany was divided in two between East and West. The same people with the same history and cultural attitude to work. The majority of commentators assumed that the communist East and capitalist West were of a comparable economic development with a similar standard of living. When the wall came down, the gulf in standard of living was massive. A social experiment between communist east and capitalist west Germany. The same is true for North and South Korea with famines in the communist country. Monetarist economists would differ in your opinion of remedy to a recession. The Austrian school would have a different opinion. You seem to have conveniently omitted that the western powers were the real authors of the partition, a ruse to avoid reparation payments to the Soviet Union. East Germany therefore had to bear the brunt of these reparations and were raped of what little industry they had. In no way did they start equal.
breadandcheese Posted 21 May 2012 Posted 21 May 2012 You seem to have conveniently omitted that the western powers were the real authors of the partition, a ruse to avoid reparation payments to the Soviet Union. East Germany therefore had to bear the brunt of these reparations and were raped of what little industry they had. In no way did they start equal. You make it sound like West Germany was a haven of economic output and not a bombed out war defeated country that needed massive loans to get it back on its feet.
l444ry Posted 21 May 2012 Posted 21 May 2012 You make it sound like West Germany was a haven of economic output and not a bombed out war defeated country that needed massive loans to get it back on its feet. The United States offered massive aid to West Germany to help it rebuild while the poorer Soviet Union, which had been devastated by the German invasion, lacked the resources to invest in the GDR. The West was rebuilt. The East stripped bare. Here lies the real reason for the difference between the two. Nothing at all to do with Capitalism or otherwise.
Daggers Posted 21 May 2012 Posted 21 May 2012 But Venezuela has a centralised state, which Marx didn't want and Nicaragua managed to 'whither away.' Is Venezuela truly Marxist? I'm guessing this is what Dagger's model is. Having lived there, I wouldn't advise anyone to hold Venezuela up as an example of anything
breadandcheese Posted 21 May 2012 Posted 21 May 2012 The United States offered massive aid to West Germany to help it rebuild while the poorer Soviet Union, which had been devastated by the German invasion, lacked the resources to invest in the GDR. The West was rebuilt. The East stripped bare. Here lies the real reason for the difference between the two. Nothing at all to do with Capitalism or otherwise. That doesn't explain the differences when the wall came down in 1989. The difference in productivity and age of equipment was remarkable. I wold argue that that was a result of a centralised planning system and the lack of incentive, the fault of communism, which can perhaps work on a small community level, but not on a country wide level.
stourbridgefox Posted 21 May 2012 Posted 21 May 2012 My wammel walk was nice, we stopped for a nice pint at a country pub too. The wammels weren't happy because I forgot the pork scratchings. I'm all calm now and don't want to talk politics. Although it's on the understanding that I was right about everything. Why did you live in Venezuela then Daggers?
Daggers Posted 21 May 2012 Posted 21 May 2012 Why did you live in Venezuela then Daggers? Because it beat the shit out of dying there!
Rincewind Posted 21 May 2012 Posted 21 May 2012 You Because it beat the shit out of dying there! You were not one of these banged up abroad dudes were you? Your celebrity status would go up on FT if you were.
Daggers Posted 21 May 2012 Posted 21 May 2012 You were not one of these banged up abroad dudes were you? No, Ken, but I visited a load.
Guest Posted 22 May 2012 Posted 22 May 2012 I think if you re-visit this discussion in 50 years you will see that Capitalism was as flawed as any other system. The West is crumbling under the debt and greed that true capitalism births. Most systems taken to their extreme implode because of the inherent weaknesses within them.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.