Dislikes Dislikes:  0
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 101 to 135 of 135

Thread: Labour

  1. #101
    Radge Private Member
    Smurf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Suburbia
    Posts
    35,828
    Post Thanks / Like
    vCash
    1000
    Mentioned
    173 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    6940 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2731
    Quote Originally Posted by Kenny View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    it didn't help though.......you have to admit that, it wasn't a positive thing for the Labour Party

    - - - Updated - - -



    as above - i'm not saying all was rosey.... but the plp did not help the situation.
    So if they all feel as they did and still do that Corbyn is useless they should all just pretend otherwise and accept the situation whereby the official opposition is in absolutely no way an alternative government in waiting?

  2. #102
    Radge Private Member

    Kenny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Glasgow
    Posts
    8,046
    Post Thanks / Like
    vCash
    1000
    Mentioned
    20 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    1993 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    671
    Quote Originally Posted by Smurf View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    So if they all feel as they did and still do that Corbyn is useless they should all just pretend otherwise and accept the situation whereby the official opposition is in absolutely no way an alternative government in waiting?
    so you are saying it had a positive impact?

    you've picked me up on a point....i said it didn't help....you and egb call me out....i asked you to clarify the point you called me out on.... you have now you obfuscated the simple statement into another without addressing my original point.

    did it help?... whether justified or not....did it help? was it helpful?
    follow the programme archive on twitter: http://twitter.com/hibsbollah

  3. #103
    Radge Private Member
    Smurf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Suburbia
    Posts
    35,828
    Post Thanks / Like
    vCash
    1000
    Mentioned
    173 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    6940 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2731
    Quote Originally Posted by Kenny View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    so you are saying it had a positive impact?

    you've picked me up on a point....i said it didn't help....you and egb call me out....i asked you to clarify the point you called me out on.... you have now you obfuscated the simple statement into another without addressing my original point.

    did it help?... whether justified or not....did it help? was it helpful?
    It didn't help but the situation was desperate and remains desperate.

    You like many others attempted to attribute the shambles that the UK official opposition is on the parliamentary Labour Party. Those on the hard left do likewise.

    All I pointed out was the actions of the PLP on their pathetic disjointed coup made no difference to the shambles.

    Your point is it didn't help. My point is it made no difference.

  4. #104
    Radge Monthly Contributor
    jock3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Posts
    1,210
    Post Thanks / Like
    vCash
    1000
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    599 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    355
    Jeremy Corbyn has been subject to an unprecedented campaign of vilification since before his election. Basically the media are sh*t scared of what he stands for.

    He is hounded for the party position on Brexit, which does need explanation. Basically there is a lot wrong with the current set up of the EU and that's what Corbyn has opposed for all these years. The EU as it stands is a capitalist vehicle for austerity, Access to the single market means exploitation of workers and free movement of capital or effectively globalisation. Corbyn rightly respects the Brexit vote, on democratic grounds, but it should be viewed as a desperate vote against austerity. He has consistently fought for a Brexit where the legislation in place to stop undercutting of wages by cheap labour is maintained.

    Incredibly the Blairite right wing of the Labour Party would rather see electoral defeat than support Corbyn's socialist policies. It's a boil that must be lanced - reselection of MP's is a must. The Tories are split over Brexit and are on their knees. What a chance to rid the county of austerity now!
    Last edited by jock3; 12-01-17 at 18:24.

  5. #105
    Radge Private Member

    egb_hibs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    From the Capital
    Posts
    35,897
    Post Thanks / Like
    vCash
    1000
    Mentioned
    104 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    6401 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2121
    Quote Originally Posted by jock3 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Jeremy Corbyn has been subject to an unprecedented campaign of vilification since before his election. Basically the media are sh*t scared of what he stands for.
    It's not unprecedented, UKIP got a lot worse. Trump is getting a lot worse.

    The common factor is they threaten establishment interests. But that doesn't mean they are or are not zoomers in their own right; that's a separate question.

    Unfortunately for the faithful, Jezza is perfectly capable of destroying the Labour Party quite apart from media bias which I agree exists.

  6. #106
    Donator
    HenryLB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    London
    Posts
    5,026
    Post Thanks / Like
    vCash
    1000
    Mentioned
    57 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    1239 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    351
    Quote Originally Posted by jock3 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Jeremy Corbyn has been subject to an unprecedented campaign of vilification since before his election. Basically the media are sh*t scared of what he stands for.
    Anyone sensible would be ;)
    so what do I know

  7. #107
    A True Gadgie/Gadgess FTJT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    2,120
    Post Thanks / Like
    vCash
    1000
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    295 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    275
    Corbyn's a very good local MP and I agree with him about a lot of things.

    In absolutely no parallel universe does he have an ounce of leadership capability in him, that's perfectly clear.

    Btw a better comparison for Corbyn than Trump/Farage (who are getting critiqued on their views/corruption/hypocrisy) would be Gordon Brown - who had it much, much, much worse - not least because he occasionally attempted to have some semblance of a media strategy, or occasionally made policy announcements, or occasionally thought before he spoke, or generally did anything with his time other than sitting in his own living room nodding to himself
    Guardian-knitting muesli-reading No Logo "baa-baa green sheep" student PC thought police

  8. #108
    Radge Private Member

    egb_hibs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    From the Capital
    Posts
    35,897
    Post Thanks / Like
    vCash
    1000
    Mentioned
    104 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    6401 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2121
    Quote Originally Posted by FTJT View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Corbyn's a very good local MP and I agree with him about a lot of things.

    In absolutely no parallel universe does he have an ounce of leadership capability in him, that's perfectly clear.

    Btw a better comparison for Corbyn than Trump/Farage (who are getting critiqued on their views/corruption/hypocrisy) would be Gordon Brown - who had it much, much, much worse - not least because he occasionally attempted to have some semblance of a media strategy, or occasionally made policy announcements, or occasionally thought before he spoke, or generally did anything with his time other than sitting in his own living room nodding to himself
    Farage and trump got / are getting particular heat because, like Corbyn, they threaten he establishment. Trump could hardly have exceeded Clinton for corruption and hypocrisy - that is not the principle reason he's getting it tight from a media that has been prostrated before Obama for 8 years.

    Gordy was a bit different - he didn't cop it like the two above and Corbyn despite having wrecked the country.

    It's not necessary for Farage, Trump and others to have similar views, the common denominator is they threaten establishment interests (and in that respect they actually do have some views in common, specifically antipathy to globalism, even if jezza is typically confused and confusing on this point).

    Corbyn is perhaps most similar to trump in that he is getting it from both the opposition and the establishment faction within his own party. In the latter case it seems to me that their is a common motivation on top of basic challenge to the globalist status quo; the fear that he will destroy his party through association with extremism / populism - delete according to prejudice.

  9. #109
    Radge Private Member

    Kenny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Glasgow
    Posts
    8,046
    Post Thanks / Like
    vCash
    1000
    Mentioned
    20 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    1993 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    671
    Quote Originally Posted by egb_hibs View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Farage and trump got / are getting particular heat because, like Corbyn, they threaten he establishment. Trump could hardly have exceeded Clinton for corruption and hypocrisy - that is not the principle reason he's getting it tight from a media that has been prostrated before Obama for 8 years.

    Gordy was a bit different - he didn't cop it like the two above and Corbyn despite having wrecked the country.

    It's not necessary for Farage, Trump and others to have similar views, the common denominator is they threaten establishment interests (and in that respect they actually do have some views in common, specifically antipathy to globalism, even if jezza is typically confused and confusing on this point).

    Corbyn is perhaps most similar to trump in that he is getting it from both the opposition and the establishment faction within his own party. In the latter case it seems to me that their is a common motivation on top of basic challenge to the globalist status quo; the fear that he will destroy his party through association with extremism / populism - delete according to prejudice.
    I do wonder at times if trump does indirectly feed into the establishment in the US....there is the theory america makes money when it's at war.... trump doesn't give the impression of the peacemaker
    follow the programme archive on twitter: http://twitter.com/hibsbollah

  10. #110
    Donator
    HenryLB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    London
    Posts
    5,026
    Post Thanks / Like
    vCash
    1000
    Mentioned
    57 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    1239 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    351
    Quote Originally Posted by egb_hibs View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Farage and trump got / are getting particular heat because, like Corbyn, they threaten he establishment. Trump could hardly have exceeded Clinton for corruption and hypocrisy - that is not the principle reason he's getting it tight from a media that has been prostrated before Obama for 8 years.
    It depends what you think the establishment is. It may be Guardian journalists living in Crouch End, or it may be billionaires who run vast resources and infrastructure companies and who are relishing the idea of binning carbon targets. The latter are pretty well represented in Trump's 'antiestablishment' cabinet.

    Can you really look at CNN's reporting of the latest scandal and say that it is confected? Or that they shouldn't have reported it? That it bears comparison with the worst of Clinton's excesses? Can you watch that press conference and conclude it looks like anything other than one given by a despot?
    so what do I know

  11. #111
    Radge Private Member

    egb_hibs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    From the Capital
    Posts
    35,897
    Post Thanks / Like
    vCash
    1000
    Mentioned
    104 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    6401 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2121
    Quote Originally Posted by Kenny View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I do wonder at times if trump does indirectly feed into the establishment in the US....there is the theory america makes money when it's at war....
    a bizarre theory given the colossal sums it loses. In fact let's be honest; it's not a theory it's an item of anti US propaganda.

    There is of course the so called military industrial complex, which the republicans warned us of decades ago, and which is / was but one example where the big state and it's suppliers can be a little shady.

    However since those days , smaller government has shrunk this from a whacking great share of the American economy to a tiny one. Moreover...
    trump doesn't give the impression of the peacemaker
    ...not sure what this is based on as even some of his fiercest critics acknowledge the one silver lining in his victory being we are far less likely to have more war than would have been the case had the establishment and CIA's fave Killary won. He is a consistent critic of America getting involved in overseas conflicts. If anything the danger is that he is so unwarlike that Europe is left to fend for itself.

  12. #112
    Bounce Flag Co-Owner


    gun ainm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Hebrides
    Posts
    4,096
    Post Thanks / Like
    Contribute If you enjoy reading the
    content here, click the below
    image to support our site.
    Click Here To Contribute To Our Site

    vCash
    1000
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    559 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by HenryLB View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I'd still be interested in your thoughts, should you have time amid the Christmas 'fun'!
    apologies Henry - didn't get much time at all amid the Christmas and new year 'fun'.

    is the question whether the UK and German economy are fundamentally different?

    if so the answer is yes in my opinion, the liberal 'anglo-saxon' capitalism of UK/US is frequently contrasted with controlled 'Germanic' model in any dissection of capitalism and their approaches seem to be ideologically distinct. So for example you get varying degrees of emphasis on

    self regulation versus state regulation
    weak unions versus strong unions
    (intra-business) competition versus co-operation
    shareholder dividend versus social benefit
    flexible labour market versus worker protection

    etc etc

    I do think the German model is broadly 'better' than the (neo)liberal one which is not the same as saying that it works well.....
    "The old is dying and the new cannot be born. In this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms can appear"

  13. #113
    Bounce Flag Co-Owner


    gun ainm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Hebrides
    Posts
    4,096
    Post Thanks / Like
    Contribute If you enjoy reading the
    content here, click the below
    image to support our site.
    Click Here To Contribute To Our Site

    vCash
    1000
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    559 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    627
    see Tristram Hunt - former darling of the labour right and shadow education sec - has left politics to run a feckin museum for £225k p.a. - the ordinary people of stoke no doubt will be greetin into their tripe and onions this morning - farewell man of the people.
    "The old is dying and the new cannot be born. In this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms can appear"

  14. #114
    Radge Private Member
    Smurf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Suburbia
    Posts
    35,828
    Post Thanks / Like
    vCash
    1000
    Mentioned
    173 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    6940 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2731
    See Labour did spectacularly well in Sunderland last night...

  15. #115
    Donator
    HenryLB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    London
    Posts
    5,026
    Post Thanks / Like
    vCash
    1000
    Mentioned
    57 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    1239 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    351
    Quote Originally Posted by gun ainm View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    apologies Henry - didn't get much time at all amid the Christmas and new year 'fun'.

    is the question whether the UK and German economy are fundamentally different?

    if so the answer is yes in my opinion, the liberal 'anglo-saxon' capitalism of UK/US is frequently contrasted with controlled 'Germanic' model in any dissection of capitalism and their approaches seem to be ideologically distinct. So for example you get varying degrees of emphasis on

    self regulation versus state regulation
    weak unions versus strong unions
    (intra-business) competition versus co-operation
    shareholder dividend versus social benefit
    flexible labour market versus worker protection

    etc etc

    I do think the German model is broadly 'better' than the (neo)liberal one which is not the same as saying that it works well.....
    I agree it's different, but as you suggest it's still capitalist. It may not be fully 'neo-liberal', but the kind of reforms you - and Mason et al - seemed to advocate earlier would still alter a huge amount of the German economy's landscape. Are you absolutely certain it would be for the better?

    Put it this way, what you describe (somewhat) approvingly here seems to me to be precisely what I'm asking for. Capitalism with a side order of social justice and money spent on curbing its unwanted effects. It might be that there is a whole other way of doing things that would blow both the German model and ours out of the water but I'd love to know more about what it might be.

    The thing I found slightly odd in your previous reply was the contention that capitalism has not brought multitudes out of poverty. Are you saying that some other system is responsible, in which case why do we need to change it if it is already not capitalism?
    so what do I know

  16. #116
    Bounce Flag Co-Owner


    gun ainm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Hebrides
    Posts
    4,096
    Post Thanks / Like
    Contribute If you enjoy reading the
    content here, click the below
    image to support our site.
    Click Here To Contribute To Our Site

    vCash
    1000
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    559 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by HenryLB View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I agree it's different, but as you suggest it's still capitalist. It may not be fully 'neo-liberal', but the kind of reforms you - and Mason et al - seemed to advocate earlier would still alter a huge amount of the German economy's landscape. Are you absolutely certain it would be for the better?

    Put it this way, what you describe (somewhat) approvingly here seems to me to be precisely what I'm asking for. Capitalism with a side order of social justice and money spent on curbing its unwanted effects. It might be that there is a whole other way of doing things that would blow both the German model and ours out of the water but I'd love to know more about what it might be.

    The thing I found slightly odd in your previous reply was the contention that capitalism has not brought multitudes out of poverty. Are you saying that some other system is responsible, in which case why do we need to change it if it is already not capitalism?
    great I think that's a logical first step so we'll be on the same side advocating for controlled rents and stronger unions for example (like zee Germans have). But really we cant really hope of copying Germany what we need to do is find our own way in Scotland (and the rest of the UK). that'd involve taking on and adapting good ideas wherever they may be found and hopefully innovating as we go along too. clearly i'm not going to write a manifesto here but there's some decent work being done by various individuals and groups that could conceivably set us on the right path. your need for certainty/guarantee is a major problem though because there is no way to achieve that, we need managed risk not paralysis in the fear of change. you seem to suggest the state should tax business and individuals to offset the negative impacts of capitalism....does that not even hint at a theoretical 'better way'?

    Policy and direction spring from an ideology/philosophy so I would be interested in what you mean by social justice as an aim for the state? the UN calls this 'the fair and compassionate distribution of the fruits of economic growth...' is that what we have now and if not what should the state (or something else) do to deliver it? surely that means a new redistributive policy? but anyways I'll let you define what you mean ;P

    capitalism has absolutely not lifted the less developed world out of poverty, 80% of the world's population are in poverty right now, more people than ever before. Nor is it reasonable in my view to credit capitalism with technological/medical advancement, you can make a strong case to say much has occurred in spite (not because) of capitalism. see for example how reliant pharmo-chem indutry is on state funded R&D at universities etc.

    As an aside the living standards of afro-american slaves went up over generations (1500 - mid 1800s) yet you would not propose that this as a defence of slavery would you?
    "The old is dying and the new cannot be born. In this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms can appear"

  17. #117
    Radge Monthly Contributor
    jock3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Posts
    1,210
    Post Thanks / Like
    vCash
    1000
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    599 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    355
    Quote Originally Posted by gun ainm View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    see Tristram Hunt - former darling of the labour right and shadow education sec - has left politics to run a feckin museum for £225k p.a. - the ordinary people of stoke no doubt will be greetin into their tripe and onions this morning - farewell man of the people.
    It can only be a good thing. If there is a choice between standing a fresh candidate on a socialist agenda or chancing it with a Blairite more likely to sabotage the result then it must be the former.....

  18. #118
    Radge Private Member
    Smurf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Suburbia
    Posts
    35,828
    Post Thanks / Like
    vCash
    1000
    Mentioned
    173 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    6940 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2731
    Quote Originally Posted by jock3 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    It can only be a good thing. If there is a choice between standing a fresh candidate on a socialist agenda or chancing it with a Blairite more likely to sabotage the result then it must be the former.....
    Was it Blairites that caused a 40%+ swing from Labour to Lib Dems in Sunderland last night?

  19. #119
    Radge Private Member

    egb_hibs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    From the Capital
    Posts
    35,897
    Post Thanks / Like
    vCash
    1000
    Mentioned
    104 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    6401 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2121
    @gun ainm

    German unions are strong but very different from the kind of unionism in Britain. Over the holidays I happened to read a history of c20 and learned this is actually another post war irony with the union system being designed by Britain - including British union representatives - and they excluded all the bad bits that scuppered the U.K. For example German unions were precluded from a wider remit than workplace concerns so didn't get turned into vehicles for progressing left wing politics. They're a nightmare to work with I have to say from personal experience - and that wasn't even any hard stuff but trying to put in place instant messaging software that staff generally love! However they are also sensible and invested in the success of their companies.

    Despite impressions for more control their economy is also famously made up in large part of small 'mittelstand' businesses. I read somewhere once that the equivalent British sector was destroyed by labour back in the post or maybe even pre war days. Can't remember the details.

    I'm a big fan of 'human scale' businesses or indeed institutions generally but it's hard to see how the UK can get back to that now minus the decades of experience they have. It's not pc but I think it's true that there is also the question of them being Germans - and like scandinavians Germans are just good at this sort of thing, whether they are based in der fatherland or immigrated to the more free market US.

    Finally on the darker side, the eu is geared to helping their industry prosper at the expense of Southern Europe. That said this may be changing as there is currently German concern about rising euro inflation engineered to wipe out Southern European debt at German expense. The flip side of their non Anglo Saxon model is the German population are not hedged against inflation through propert ownership so it's more serious business there than here. History suggests it's not good when Germans get impoverished so let's hope that doesn't happen.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Ps in terms of good news - I'm not sure where you get your figures on global poverty? I guess they must refer to the movable feast of relative poverty because the percentage of the world living in extreme or absolute poverty has plummeted thanks to global capitalism (while the likes of
    Life expectancy has shot up).

    Those that remain are generally a product of bad domestic government while formerly third world countries with notably effective government (I choose this phrase rather than good as outside economics many leave a lot to be desired) are rocketing upwards in living standards.

    This is simply the truth and it poses awkward questions that I for one struggle with as it is indivisible from things getting less good for western workers. It can seem like some people can't admit this conundrum and prefer to pretend it isn't there - both among right wing liberals who have no answer to the downside and left wingers who simply pretend that capitalism isn't having these massively positive effects - not least in contrast to the disasters that control economies inflicted all over the developing world.

  20. #120
    Radge Private Member

    egb_hibs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    From the Capital
    Posts
    35,897
    Post Thanks / Like
    vCash
    1000
    Mentioned
    104 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    6401 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2121
    Quote Originally Posted by HenryLB View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    It depends what you think the establishment is. It may be Guardian journalists living in Crouch End, or it may be billionaires who run vast resources and infrastructure companies and who are relishing the idea of binning carbon targets. The latter are pretty well represented in Trump's 'antiestablishment' cabinet.

    Can you really look at CNN's reporting of the latest scandal and say that it is confected? Or that they shouldn't have reported it? That it bears comparison with the worst of Clinton's excesses? Can you watch that press conference and conclude it looks like anything other than one given by a despot?
    Small example H but this common room wheeze is an example of stuff which doesn't happen even to Corbyn and reveals the establishment in its casual assumptions and domination of the media

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-38635518

    As for the establishment; your guardianista journalists are cheerleaders and enablers for the billionaires of globalism. The same goes for their US equivalents - that is central to what is going on.

    Trump meanwhile is a weapon of the first order - that's not the point. He's as bigoted as your average liberal media nabob, albeit with a different menu of prejudices, and equally as loathesome. That he is president
    is a disaster which as sure as night follows day is the product of prior 'progressive' bampottery.

    In summary, he is a first class zoomer but anyone who pretends he is other than the most anti establishment zoomer that's been near power in decades, is kidding themselves. He's also living proof that anti establishment is not synonymous with good.

  21. #121
    Donator
    HenryLB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    London
    Posts
    5,026
    Post Thanks / Like
    vCash
    1000
    Mentioned
    57 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    1239 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    351
    Quote Originally Posted by gun ainm View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    great I think that's a logical first step so we'll be on the same side advocating for controlled rents and stronger unions for example (like zee Germans have). But really we cant really hope of copying Germany what we need to do is find our own way in Scotland (and the rest of the UK). that'd involve taking on and adapting good ideas wherever they may be found and hopefully innovating as we go along too. clearly i'm not going to write a manifesto here but there's some decent work being done by various individuals and groups that could conceivably set us on the right path. your need for certainty/guarantee is a major problem though because there is no way to achieve that, we need managed risk not paralysis in the fear of change. you seem to suggest the state should tax business and individuals to offset the negative impacts of capitalism....does that not even hint at a theoretical 'better way'?
    This seems a rather different thrust to what you were suggesting earlier? Instead of a revolutionary overhaul of the whole system it feels like you just want to tweak what we have now, borrowing good ideas where you find them. Which is kind of what I have in mind, to be honest.

    When we talked earlier about this new anti-capitalism, I pointed out that it seems to disappear a bit when a light is shone on it. Details are hard to come by.

    Policy and direction spring from an ideology/philosophy so I would be interested in what you mean by social justice as an aim for the state? the UN calls this 'the fair and compassionate distribution of the fruits of economic growth...' is that what we have now and if not what should the state (or something else) do to deliver it? surely that means a new redistributive policy? but anyways I'll let you define what you mean ;P
    Well if the UN and I are advocating it the it won't be particularly subversive. And tbh I'm not that interested in ideology. If ordinary people have enough resources to live a decent life, have good medical care and go on holiday once in a while then that's enough of a start for me. I suppose that might seem rather suburban and unglamorous but there it is.

    capitalism has absolutely not lifted the less developed world out of poverty, 80% of the world's population are in poverty right now, more people than ever before. Nor is it reasonable in my view to credit capitalism with technological/medical advancement, you can make a strong case to say much has occurred in spite (not because) of capitalism. see for example how reliant pharmo-chem indutry is on state funded R&D at universities etc.
    It absolutely has, at least for significant numbers of people, and I have sourced that claim. Can you provide a source for your 80%?

    Yes, the pharma industry is reliant on universities but it's also reliant on huge chunks of private money. Take away either and it would be poorer.

    As an aside the living standards of afro-american slaves went up over generations (1500 - mid 1800s) yet you would not propose that this as a defence of slavery would you?
    A reasonable chief measure for capitalism is its economic success because it is an economic system. To me, reasonable measures for other things differ because they are not economic systems, so one might bring to bear other criteria. So I wouldn't personally judge the validity of a world war, or the headliners of the Glastonbury Festival, or the Indian caste system in purely fiscal terms because they are not purely fiscal things.

    It's also obvious that with slavery the alternative would have been economically better for those enslaved. Which is not something you are able to claim in this case. Capitalism has been (an adulterated) good for vast numbers of people in terms of their economic benefit. You want to replace it with... well, that's rather the point isn't it? Something entirely unknown that nevertheless will be 'better'. I'm not convinced.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by egb_hibs View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Small example H but this common room wheeze is an example of stuff which doesn't happen even to Corbyn and reveals the establishment in its casual assumptions and domination of the media

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-38635518

    As for the establishment; your guardianista journalists are cheerleaders and enablers for the billionaires of globalism. The same goes for their US equivalents - that is central to what is going on.

    Trump meanwhile is a weapon of the first order - that's not the point. He's as bigoted as your average liberal media nabob, albeit with a different menu of prejudices, and equally as loathesome. That he is president
    is a disaster which as sure as night follows day is the product of prior 'progressive' bampottery.

    In summary, he is a first class zoomer but anyone who pretends he is other than the most anti establishment zoomer that's been near power in decades, is kidding themselves. He's also living proof that anti establishment is not synonymous with good.
    The billionaires of globalism seem quite well represented in Trump's cabinet. I cannot for the life of me see how you equate the appointment of ex Goldman-Sachs executives to the highest positions of power as anti-establishment.

    We've discussed this before, but i don't see this great anti-establishment shakeup that you do. It looks to me like frightened US (and British) workers falling under the spell of a conservative promise to return to some mythical time of prosperity, possibly at the expense of an amorphous group of liberals, migrants, muslims, blacks and the 'politically correct'. It has slightly variegated packaging, true, but the contents seem utterly familiar.
    so what do I know

  22. #122
    Radge Private Member

    egb_hibs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    From the Capital
    Posts
    35,897
    Post Thanks / Like
    vCash
    1000
    Mentioned
    104 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    6401 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2121
    @HenryLB - I for one expect trump in office to be much more moderate / conformist than his rhetoric. However the point stands that so far he has being rattling the cages of the globalist establishment like no one in living memory and is an anti establishment candidate. Whether his supporters are doomed to disappointment as I expect, time will tell - but his whole cabinet was hardly going to come from breitbart. Goldman, meanwhile, are nothing if not adaptable, though one suspects their preference would be emphatically Davos-esque.

    As for your point about shake ups - would be better addressed to those who think brexit means the sky will fall on our heads. Not sure what is being sold is a conservative pitch unless you subscribe to conservative parties being the new parties of labour - I think we're some way from that. Trump is coming on like a pre war democrat if anything. National review,
    which arguably created American conservatism, loathes him.

    There is, by the way, nothing mythical about pre-globalisation prosperity even if it is viewed through rose tinted specs which ignore the necessary corolloraries. That it can be restored - that is a probably a myth.

  23. #123
    Radge Private Member

    Kenny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Glasgow
    Posts
    8,046
    Post Thanks / Like
    vCash
    1000
    Mentioned
    20 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    1993 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    671



    where did the scottish conservatives get 1M from.
    follow the programme archive on twitter: http://twitter.com/hibsbollah

  24. #124
    Donator
    HenryLB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    London
    Posts
    5,026
    Post Thanks / Like
    vCash
    1000
    Mentioned
    57 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    1239 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    351
    Quote Originally Posted by egb_hibs View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    @HenryLB - I for one expect trump in office to be much more moderate / conformist than his rhetoric. However the point stands that so far he has being rattling the cages of the globalist establishment like no one in living memory and is an anti establishment candidate. Whether his supporters are doomed to disappointment as I expect, time will tell - but his whole cabinet was hardly going to come from breitbart. Goldman, meanwhile, are nothing if not adaptable, though one suspects their preference would be emphatically Davos-esque.
    I think you're mistaking fears that he will create conflict with China or melt down the economy with worries that he might cause problems for 'the elite'. One can be simultaneously a member of the establishment and also think that Trump will cause problems for everybody, including oneself.

    Are one percenter globalist swines like myself really terrified because he might reinvigorate the West Virginia coalfield? Personally not. Indeed I suspect it's impossible, which causes problems of its own. Am I worried he might start slinging nukes around? Actually I am, a bit.

    As for your point about shake ups - would be better addressed to those who think brexit means the sky will fall on our heads. Not sure what is being sold is a conservative pitch unless you subscribe to conservative parties being the new parties of labour - I think we're some way from that. Trump is coming on like a pre war democrat if anything. National review,
    which arguably created American conservatism, loathes him.
    I meant conservative in the broadest sense. A hankering for a simpler time.

    There is, by the way, nothing mythical about pre-globalisation prosperity even if it is viewed through rose tinted specs which ignore the necessary corolloraries. That it can be restored - that is a probably a myth.
    When was it?
    so what do I know

  25. #125
    Radge Private Member

    egb_hibs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    From the Capital
    Posts
    35,897
    Post Thanks / Like
    vCash
    1000
    Mentioned
    104 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    6401 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2121
    Quote Originally Posted by HenryLB View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I think you're mistaking fears that he will create conflict with China or melt down the economy with worries that he might cause problems for 'the elite'. One can be simultaneously a member of the establishment and also think that Trump will cause problems for everybody, including oneself.

    Are one percenter globalist swines like myself really terrified because he might reinvigorate the West Virginia coalfield? Personally not. Indeed I suspect it's impossible, which causes problems of its own. Am I worried he might start slinging nukes around? Actually I am, a bit.
    actually if you look at American commentary they very much are afraid he'll roll back the identity politics bandwagon and other such shibboleths. Same with the UK actually.

    On the economy I haven't seen a single argument - let alone a convincing one - on why he might make things worse for those who voted for him. The same applies even more so for brexit. Will it make life tougher for investment bankers - well very possibly (brexit anyway) - but basically who gives a $#@!. On matters of war and peace (the reason I voted remain incidentally) i agree he's a worry but then even many of those who loathe him concede Hillary was more so. You can be sure he'd suffer an accident before he gets to sling any nukes at least based on the kind of whacky motives some seem to fear.

    I meant conservative in the broadest sense. A hankering for a simpler time.
    around the world self declared radicals are quailing at their dinner tables at actual radical change; yet you imagine the people that voted for it to be nostalgists hankering for a simpler time. Interesting. I see a bunch of self absorbed myopic twaddle from middle class people unable to believe that the illusions of the casino banking funded 90s / early 00s are gone forever; golden age thinking indeed. I hate to say but I think you have one foot under that dinner table.

    Understandably you see things from your point of view. Seeing things from mine I'd also rather we bremained and trump never won. But I can see it from others point of view as well and I'll be quite surprised if things get worse (meaning worse than would otherwise have been the case) for those who voted for these things. I also don't think they're hicks to be condescended to, and certainly no more ignorant than the complacent winners from globalism and those they sponsor.



    When was it?
    late 1940s to early / mid 1970s in the US broadly. Some more for some Americans in the 80s and 90s but not for chunks of the Trump vote. They're ahead of the curve vs UK as they got into globalism about 20 years in front. Here things started to go into a reverse that was more than down to the economic cycle in the early 00s I reckon, though many didn't notice til the debt based mitigating factors (creation of well paid state jobs) went pop. It's different than 80s deindustrialisation as there is nothing coming within the status quo that provides a new model; the deplorables seem more able to see this than those riding the crest of the wave.

  26. #126
    Donator
    HenryLB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    London
    Posts
    5,026
    Post Thanks / Like
    vCash
    1000
    Mentioned
    57 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    1239 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    351
    Quote Originally Posted by egb_hibs View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    actually if you look at American commentary they very much are afraid he'll roll back the identity politics bandwagon and other such shibboleths. Same with the UK actually.
    No, they're largely worried he'll pretend to do that while in fact eroding rights for minorities. It's quite different.

    On the economy I haven't seen a single argument - let alone a convincing one - on why he might make things worse for those who voted for him. The same applies even more so for brexit. Will it make life tougher for investment bankers - well very possibly (brexit anyway) - but basically who gives a $#@!. On matters of war and peace (the reason I voted remain incidentally) i agree he's a worry but then even many of those who loathe him concede Hillary was more so. You can be sure he'd suffer an accident before he gets to sling any nukes at least based on the kind of whacky motives some seem to fear.
    How is he going to save the West Virginia coalfield? When he and his Goldman Sachs boys sit down and think that one through - assuming they bother - how will they go about it? Because he's explicitly said he will achieve this.

    Likewise he's going to recreate all these manufacturing jobs, prevent them leaving or bring them back. But in the terms he is describing all these things are impossible. What is required is a new model - you even admit this yourself. Not a return to a thing which worked in 1953 and wasn't even as good as people remember anyway.

    Will this make things worse. Yes. A failed solution is potentially a big disaster in waiting, especially when people actually think it might work.

    around the world self declared radicals are quailing at their dinner tables at actual radical change; yet you imagine the people that voted for it to be nostalgists hankering for a simpler time. Interesting. I see a bunch of self absorbed myopic twaddle from middle class people unable to believe that the illusions of the casino banking funded 90s / early 00s are gone forever; golden age thinking indeed. I hate to say but I think you have one foot under that dinner table.

    Understandably you see things from your point of view. Seeing things from mine I'd also rather we bremained and trump never won. But I can see it from others point of view as well and I'll be quite surprised if things get worse (meaning worse than would otherwise have been the case) for those who voted for these things. I also don't think they're hicks to be condescended to, and certainly no more ignorant than the complacent winners from globalism and those they sponsor.
    I'm not patronising them, but let's face it - the man is a demagogue who can't admit he's wrong and who has flirted with nativism. When something doesn't work do you think he'll attempt to thoughtfully decode how to solve the problem, or blame the blacks/Mexicans/lefties?

    That's what I'm worried about. Not my wellbeing, because I expect with all my fellow one percenters in the corridors of power my interests may well be safe.

    I also wonder if the bankers you're writing off will really be screwed over by their fellow, er, bankers.



    late 1940s to early / mid 1970s in the US broadly. Some more for some Americans in the 80s and 90s but not for chunks of the Trump vote. They're ahead of the curve vs UK as they got into globalism about 20 years in front. Here things started to go into a reverse that was more than down to the economic cycle in the early 00s I reckon, though many didn't notice til the debt based mitigating factors (creation of well paid state jobs) went pop. It's different than 80s deindustrialisation as there is nothing coming within the status quo that provides a new model; the deplorables seem more able to see this than those riding the crest of the wave.
    You really think austerity Britain was better and a more desirable era to live in than today? You think IMF crisis-era UK had a higher standard of living?
    so what do I know

  27. #127
    Radge Private Member

    egb_hibs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    From the Capital
    Posts
    35,897
    Post Thanks / Like
    vCash
    1000
    Mentioned
    104 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    6401 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2121
    Quote Originally Posted by HenryLB View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    No, they're largely worried he'll pretend to do that while in fact eroding rights for minorities. It's quite different.
    i don't think you're right on that. An increasingly racialised politics has been encouraged by the liberal left, along with a wider portfolio of identity politics. It's fracturing American society, contributes to keeping black people trapped in poverty, provides a rationale for abandoning poor whites, and is generally poisoning civil society. I think the snowflakes are concerned about a) their own medicine being dished out in reverse and b) this sort of scheming losing its power. I have zero sympathy for the latter and plenty for the innocent casualties of the former should it come to pass; as I am sorry for existing victims. I am in no doubt as to who sewed this bitter harvest.

    How is he going to save the West Virginia coalfield? When he and his Goldman Sachs boys sit down and think that one through - assuming they bother - how will they go about it? Because he's explicitly said he will achieve this.

    Likewise he's going to recreate all these manufacturing jobs, prevent them leaving or bring them back. But in the terms he is describing all these things are impossible. What is required is a new model - you even admit this yourself. Not a return to a thing which worked in 1953 and wasn't even as good as people remember anyway.

    Will this make things worse. Yes. A failed solution is potentially a big disaster in waiting, especially when people actually think it might work.
    you are looking in the wrong place for a defence on trump. All I have said is I will be surprised if it gets worse for his voters; because it's already $#@!. I think it could quite possibly get better but it may well not do. Ultimately I don't think the globalising tides can be turned and a $#@! future stretches out for many people. You can't expect them to take it quietly though.

    I'm not patronising them, but let's face it - the man is a demagogue who can't admit he's wrong and who has flirted with nativism. When something doesn't work do you think he'll attempt to thoughtfully decode how to solve the problem, or blame the blacks/Mexicans/lefties?

    That's what I'm worried about. Not my wellbeing, because I expect with all my fellow one percenters in the corridors of power my interests may well be safe.

    I also wonder if the bankers you're writing off will really be screwed over by their fellow, er, bankers.
    i think he is an arse too, so again don't expect a defence from me. The other side are just as bad on racial politics though - indeed they begat this mess. They also bait Christians, Jews, flyover states, hicks clinging to God and guns and so on. No better; just they have long got to dictate what is acceptable prejudice.

    And I think you do patronise; you dismiss the concerns of those on the receiving end of today's establishment and seem to allow them no motive bar stupidity, while suggesting they're blindly reaching for an imaginary golden age even as you try to hang on to your own. What would your argument be to them to vote as you do, if you aren't allowed to use fear; what's your positive pitch?

    As for the bankers - bearing in mind I perhaps unfairly was contrasting with your similar views on brexit, it's started already at HSBC and UBS

    You really think austerity Britain was better and a more desirable era to live in than today? You think IMF crisis-era UK had a higher standard of living?
    we were talking about the US principally, and rising living standards gave people rapidly improving living standards in the periods you asked me to identify. Those are now structurally in decline and no end in sight. The same applies in the U.K. except the starting position was more straitened due to the war.

  28. #128
    Donator
    HenryLB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    London
    Posts
    5,026
    Post Thanks / Like
    vCash
    1000
    Mentioned
    57 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    1239 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    351
    Quote Originally Posted by egb_hibs View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    i don't think you're right on that. An increasingly racialised politics has been encouraged by the liberal left, along with a wider portfolio of identity politics.
    That's an extraordinary piece of sophistry. I suppose Martin Luther King was also guilty of encouraging a racialised politics.

    It's fracturing American society, contributes to keeping black people trapped in poverty, provides a rationale for abandoning poor whites, and is generally poisoning civil society. I think the snowflakes are concerned about a) their own medicine being dished out in reverse and b) this sort of scheming losing its power. I have zero sympathy for the latter and plenty for the innocent casualties of the former should it come to pass; as I am sorry for existing victims. I am in no doubt as to who sewed this bitter harvest.
    Can you explain the actual operation of this disastrous avalanche of good intentions gone awry? You characterise it as such an acute threat, perhaps the most serious facing us, that I'd like to understand more about how a basic desire for equality has turned into such a monster.

    you are looking in the wrong place for a defence on trump. All I have said is I will be surprised if it gets worse for his voters; because it's already $#@!. I think it could quite possibly get better but it may well not do. Ultimately I don't think the globalising tides can be turned and a $#@! future stretches out for many people. You can't expect them to take it quietly though.
    To me this makes no sense. You are saying 'his voters' are broadly in crisis, and that he is an idiot with the wrong prescription for helping them. But that it won't get worse, somehow.

    I contend that it will get worse, because his 'plan' for alleviating their problems is barely a plan at all, but rather a series of empty slogans with a sprinkling of racial prejudice. And I don't expect anyone to take this lying down, but I also don't see that as a reason to shrug when they mobilise to elect a potential fascist.



    i think he is an arse too, so again don't expect a defence from me. The other side are just as bad on racial politics though - indeed they begat this mess. They also bait Christians, Jews, flyover states, hicks clinging to God and guns and so on. No better; just they have long got to dictate what is acceptable prejudice.

    And I think you do patronise; you dismiss the concerns of those on the receiving end of today's establishment and seem to allow them no motive bar stupidity, while suggesting they're blindly reaching for an imaginary golden age even as you try to hang on to your own. What would your argument be to them to vote as you do, if you aren't allowed to use fear; what's your positive pitch?
    What's yours? Obama didn't work, centrism was apparently an excuse for plundering by elites. Trump is supposedly a symptom of globalist collapse, not a solution. A reversal of the worst enormities of globalism is impossible.

    This seems... pessimistic. And I don't think you're committing to your thesis, which is that nativism is the least-worst choice for people in the West. Indeed I'd argue that it's you who is patronising people. You want to condemn Trump but you don't want to condemn those who vote for him, and if you were being honest you'd have to do both.

    My solution? I think we face vast problems. I could write a book about my thoughts on this. What I absolutely know is not the answer is a capricious man-child peddling semi-fascist pie in the sky.

    As for the bankers - bearing in mind I perhaps unfairly was contrasting with your similar views on brexit, it's started already at HSBC and UBS
    That's part of a practical issue created by Brexit, so unrelated to Trump's incoming cabinet. It will directly affect the exchequer's ability to pay for schools and hospitals, amongst other things, though. Still, woo, fck bankers!!

    In what ways do you think the Trump administration will cause similar problems for Wall Street?

    we were talking about the US principally, and rising living standards gave people rapidly improving living standards in the periods you asked me to identify. Those are now structurally in decline and no end in sight. The same applies in the U.K. except the starting position was more straitened due to the war.
    But for your argument to work it needs to apply to the UK too, and it self-evidently doesn't. In the US even if it was real - which it wasn't - it is a fantasy that even you admit we couldn't return to.

    Yes there were rising standards of living, but they started from what today would be an unimaginably low base. And what do you think they rose to? Look at figures for poverty in the west in the post-war period, for health outcomes for low income households in the US and UK. Calibrate how the situation has improved for women - tchoh, a minority of course, so perhaps excluded from our discussion because "identity politics", but still half the population. Anecdotally, think of the inner cities of Detroit and NYC in the 'Taxi Driver' era.

    By almost any marker, despite the terrors facing us, and no matter what your social group, you would be mad to choose to live in, say, 1960 over now.
    so what do I know

  29. #129
    Bounce Flag Co-Owner


    gun ainm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Hebrides
    Posts
    4,096
    Post Thanks / Like
    Contribute If you enjoy reading the
    content here, click the below
    image to support our site.
    Click Here To Contribute To Our Site

    vCash
    1000
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    559 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    627
    on my claim that 'capitalism has absolutely not lifted the less developed world out of poverty' (and I appreciate this was ages ago but I was reading an article recently and it reminded me of this conversation)

    Quote Originally Posted by HenryLB View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    It absolutely has, at least for significant numbers of people, and I have sourced that claim.
    a few points - poverty (as defined by the UN which basically says if you have less than $1.25 per day you are in absolute poverty*) has indeed reduced in the global south (since say WWII). If you were to dig a little deeper into those stats you'd find that this has largely been delivered by state-led action in China and East Asia more generally. If you take those countries out of the equation the rest have not seen much if any uplift

    * how we measure poverty is critical - if we went for a more reasonable measure of $5 per day then poverty is on the increase (see LINK)

    the reasons why poverty is so persistent is summarised well in the article I was reading (see here) - ( In 2012, developing countries lost $700bn through trade misinvoicing, which outstripped aid receipts that year by a factor of five)

    the central point is that the poor countries are (still) subsidising the rich countries post colonialism

    In 2012, the last year of recorded data (on global wealth transfer), developing countries received a total of $1.3tn, including all aid, investment, and income from abroad. But that same year some $3.3tn flowed out of them. In other words, developing countries sent $2tn more to the rest of the world than they received. If we look at all years since 1980, these net outflows add up to an eye-popping total of $16.3tn – that’s how much money has been drained out of the global south over the past few decades. To get a sense for the scale of this, $16.3tn is roughly the GDP of the United States.


    the analysis makes a convincing case of how the capitalism is suppressing development in the poorer countries (the global south). this is the same as perpetuating poverty isn't it? for every $1 of aid that developing countries receive, they lose $24 in net outflows

    furthermore the only examples of counties in the south being able to buck that trend are those that have used state intervention and protectionism to insulate themselves from capitalism...
    Last edited by gun ainm; 20-12-17 at 16:46.
    "The old is dying and the new cannot be born. In this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms can appear"

  30. #130
    Donator
    HenryLB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    London
    Posts
    5,026
    Post Thanks / Like
    vCash
    1000
    Mentioned
    57 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    1239 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    351
    Quote Originally Posted by gun ainm View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    on my claim that 'capitalism has absolutely not lifted the less developed world out of poverty' (and I appreciate this was ages ago but I was reading an article recently and it reminded me of this conversation)



    a few points - poverty (as defined by the UN which basically says if you have less than $1.25 per day you are in absolute poverty*) has indeed reduced in the global south (since say WWII). If you were to dig a little deeper into those stats you'd find that this has largely been delivered by state-led action in China and East Asia more generally. If you take those countries out of the equation the rest have not seen much if any uplift

    * how we measure poverty is critical - if we went for a more reasonable measure of $5 per day then poverty is on the increase (see LINK)

    the reasons why poverty is so persistent is summarised well in the article I was reading (see here) - its about debt, repatriation and capital flight (Usually the goal is to evade taxes, but sometimes this practice is used to launder money or circumvent capital controls. In 2012, developing countries lost $700bn through trade misinvoicing, which outstripped aid receipts that year by a factor of five)

    the central point is that the poor countries are (still) subsidising the rich countries post colonialism

    In 2012, the last year of recorded data (on global wealth transfer), developing countries received a total of $1.3tn, including all aid, investment, and income from abroad. But that same year some $3.3tn flowed out of them. In other words, developing countries sent $2tn more to the rest of the world than they received. If we look at all years since 1980, these net outflows add up to an eye-popping total of $16.3tn – that’s how much money has been drained out of the global south over the past few decades. To get a sense for the scale of this, $16.3tn is roughly the GDP of the United States.


    the analysis makes a convincing case of how the capitalism is suppressing development in the poorer countries (the global south). this is the same as perpetuating poverty isn't it? for every $1 of aid that developing countries receive, they lose $24 in net outflows

    furthermore the only examples of counties in the south being able to buck that trend are those that have used state intervention and protectionism to insulate themselves from capitalism...
    I'll have a read later.

    One initial point: excluding China looks a bigger sleight of hand than anything Hickel identifies in the statistics. Although you seem to have adjusted what he says by describing Chinese anti-poverty successes as 'state-led' and therefore non-capitalist by implication. Which is quite a stretch, if one considers the recent political and economic history of the country.
    so what do I know

  31. #131
    Bounce Flag Co-Owner


    gun ainm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Hebrides
    Posts
    4,096
    Post Thanks / Like
    Contribute If you enjoy reading the
    content here, click the below
    image to support our site.
    Click Here To Contribute To Our Site

    vCash
    1000
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    559 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by HenryLB View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I'll have a read later.

    One initial point: excluding China looks a bigger sleight of hand than anything Hickel identifies in the statistics. Although you seem to have adjusted what he says by describing Chinese anti-poverty successes as 'state-led' and therefore non-capitalist by implication. Which is quite a stretch, if one considers the recent political and economic history of the country.
    don't think anyone would suggest China has followed the Washington Consensus / neoliberal model of the 80s.... I'd suggest theirs is a very different model to what we (westerners) commonly think of as capitalist - see the prominence of the state over finance & investments, key industries etc. I don't want us to get lost in the effort of defining exactly what I/you mean by capitalism but China is different imo....

    from wiki (state capitalism versus free market capitalism)

    In this (Chinese) system, governments use various kinds of state-owned companies to manage the exploitation of resources that they consider the state's crown jewels and to create and maintain large numbers of jobs. They use select privately owned companies to dominate certain economic sectors. They use so-called sovereign wealth funds to invest their extra cash in ways that maximize the state's profits. In all three cases, the state is using markets to create wealth that can be directed as political officials see fit. And in all three cases, the ultimate motive is not economic (maximizing growth) but political (maximizing the state's power and the leadership's chances of survival). This is a form of capitalism but one in which the state acts as the dominant economic player and uses markets primarily for political gain.

    is it not enough to say that the real improvements in world poverty figures have largely been realised in China and that the rest of the world has (by and large) not experienced this uplift?
    "The old is dying and the new cannot be born. In this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms can appear"

  32. #132
    Donator
    HenryLB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    London
    Posts
    5,026
    Post Thanks / Like
    vCash
    1000
    Mentioned
    57 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    1239 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    351
    Quote Originally Posted by gun ainm View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    don't think anyone would suggest China has followed the Washington Consensus / neoliberal model of the 80s.... I'd suggest theirs is a very different model to what we (westerners) commonly think of as capitalist - see the prominence of the state over finance & investments, key industries etc. I don't want us to get lost in the effort of defining exactly what I/you mean by capitalism but China is different imo....

    from wiki (state capitalism versus free market capitalism)

    In this (Chinese) system, governments use various kinds of state-owned companies to manage the exploitation of resources that they consider the state's crown jewels and to create and maintain large numbers of jobs. They use select privately owned companies to dominate certain economic sectors. They use so-called sovereign wealth funds to invest their extra cash in ways that maximize the state's profits. In all three cases, the state is using markets to create wealth that can be directed as political officials see fit. And in all three cases, the ultimate motive is not economic (maximizing growth) but political (maximizing the state's power and the leadership's chances of survival). This is a form of capitalism but one in which the state acts as the dominant economic player and uses markets primarily for political gain.

    is it not enough to say that the real improvements in world poverty figures have largely been realised in China and that the rest of the world has (by and large) not experienced this uplift?
    Well, having read more, no, not really. The paper suggests that "If we were to measure global poverty in the middle of the ethical poverty line range, we would find the total poverty headcount to be about 3.5 billion people... around 500 million more people have been added to the ranks of the poor since 1981."

    But there are 3 billion more people in the world now. So proportionally-speaking poverty has been significantly reduced. There's still clearly a lot that can be done, but had the proportion remained the same you'd expect that number to be nearly a full billion higher. Also capitalism didn't start in 1981. Rates of poverty by percentage were dropping before then.

    I agree with a lot of what Hickel says about the way in which the figures were massaged to make them look better and he is good on the failures of a specific scheme that is very rosy about its own results. But he's quite tricksy with the numbers he uses as well, to the point of appearing polemical (which may be the point). While thought provoking - and I'm grateful you posted it - I don't think this refutes what I wrote.
    so what do I know

  33. #133
    Bounce Flag Co-Owner


    gun ainm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Hebrides
    Posts
    4,096
    Post Thanks / Like
    Contribute If you enjoy reading the
    content here, click the below
    image to support our site.
    Click Here To Contribute To Our Site

    vCash
    1000
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    559 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by HenryLB View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Well, having read more, no, not really. The paper suggests that "If we were to measure global poverty in the middle of the ethical poverty line range, we would find the total poverty headcount to be about 3.5 billion people... around 500 million more people have been added to the ranks of the poor since 1981."

    But there are 3 billion more people in the world now. So proportionally-speaking poverty has been significantly reduced. There's still clearly a lot that can be done, but had the proportion remained the same you'd expect that number to be nearly a full billion higher. Also capitalism didn't start in 1981. Rates of poverty by percentage were dropping before then.

    I agree with a lot of what Hickel says about the way in which the figures were massaged to make them look better and he is good on the failures of a specific scheme that is very rosy about its own results. But he's quite tricksy with the numbers he uses as well, to the point of appearing polemical (which may be the point). While thought provoking - and I'm grateful you posted it - I don't think this refutes what I wrote.
    not so interested in refuting what you wrote - its a question of emphasis as Hinckel says 'the good-news narrative about poverty reduction begins to appear tenuous in light of the statistical sleight-of-hand that lies behind it'. As we've now agreed your claim can be made to stand up if we are selective with the figures and how we define poverty so fair play.

    Incidentally I agree the upward curve was much better pre 1980 - the post colonial world saw many countries in the global south adopt leftist and protectionist policies - see latin america, egypt, west africa etc - and poverty was reduced. Coups and corruption were a significant issues across many of those countries but the main thing that changed that trajectory was i think the oil crisis and its impact on debt plus the restructuring required/imposed by the world bank/IMF a few years later. Similar to whats happened to Greece more recently - deregulation of the economy which opens it up to the exploitation that results in the perverse situation where for every dollar that travels from north to south 24 dollars comes the other way. greek iausterity is about bailing out french and german financiers. that in short is the impact of globalisation and neoliberalism - to depress rather than lift the global south out of poverty - imagine what those countries would look like if trilions of dollars werent being siphoned off by 'us' every year? 'Our' system is based on the immiseration/impoverishment of the majority of the worlds population.

    i'll leave you with another quote

    In reality between 1.5 and 2.5 billion people do not have access to adequate food, and between 3.5 and 4.3 billion remain in poverty – that is, they do not have resources adequate to achieve normal human life expectancy and meet their basic needs as laid out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. These numbers are two to four times higher than the UN would have us believe. And they have been generally rising, not falling.
    "The old is dying and the new cannot be born. In this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms can appear"

  34. #134
    Donator
    HenryLB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    London
    Posts
    5,026
    Post Thanks / Like
    vCash
    1000
    Mentioned
    57 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    1239 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    351
    Quote Originally Posted by gun ainm View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    not so interested in refuting what you wrote - its a question of emphasis as Hinckel says 'the good-news narrative about poverty reduction begins to appear tenuous in light of the statistical sleight-of-hand that lies behind it'. As we've now agreed your claim can be made to stand up if we are selective with the figures and how we define poverty so fair play.
    It's more about whether you want to work in actual numbers or percentages. I think it's a bit deceptive to use the former to discuss a period in which the global population has more than doubled.

    Incidentally I agree the upward curve was much better pre 1980 - the post colonial world saw many countries in the global south adopt leftist and protectionist policies - see latin america, egypt, west africa etc - and poverty was reduced. Coups and corruption were a significant issues across many of those countries but the main thing that changed that trajectory was i think the oil crisis and its impact on debt plus the restructuring required/imposed by the world bank/IMF a few years later. Similar to whats happened to Greece more recently - deregulation of the economy which opens it up to the exploitation that results in the perverse situation where for every dollar that travels from north to south 24 dollars comes the other way. greek austerity is about bailing out french and german financiers.

    The post-colonial period also saw a massive adoption of liberalised markets globally. You seem to say that anything you like isn't capitalism and anything you don't like is, so capitalist countries that employ some protectionism are enjoying success because of the protectionism, not the market which underpins their activity. Take you view of Greece - the idea that before forced EU fiscal measures it was not essentially capitalist is rather odd. You can certainly disagree with deregulation but if you think it was a golden age before, you are going to have to acknowledge the essentially free market nature of that golden age.

    And I had thought you were in favour of the EU. Which after all is a capitalist entity, apart from its external protectionism which inarguably increases global poverty. So it's a perfect example of the reverse of your arguments - were free markets employed by the EU on imports it would certainly reduce the numbers of poor people.


    that in short is the impact of globalisation and neoliberalism - to depress rather than lift the global south out of poverty - imagine what those countries would look like if trilions of dollars werent being siphoned off by 'us' every year? 'Our' system is based on the immiseration/impoverishment of the majority of the worlds population.
    If what you are saying is true, why is global growth not concentrated in our hands, but instead found in areas that have most benefitted from recent globalised trade? Can you explain the mechanism by which we siphon off these trillions of dollars from, say, Chad or Niger? Because that's where the poor people are.

    Which countries are you thinking of when you say that some other form of economic organisation than capitalism has been a success? It can't be China, which has gone on precisely the opposite trajectory, to dramatic effect - as the paper acknowledges when it keeps trying to leave it out of calculations. Note, I'm not saying 'China is fully capitalist'; I'm saying that it is more capitalist than it was in 1950 - and oddly enough more prosperous.

    If your thesis were true countries that have not participated in capitalism would have outstripped those that have, would they not? Lots of bad things have happened in the world, myriad things could be done better. But pretty much every time your critique (I use the term broadly) turns into action it seems to end in disaster.



    i'll leave you with another quote

    In reality between 1.5 and 2.5 billion people do not have access to adequate food, and between 3.5 and 4.3 billion remain in poverty – that is, they do not have resources adequate to achieve normal human life expectancy and meet their basic needs as laid out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. These numbers are two to four times higher than the UN would have us believe. And they have been generally rising, not falling.
    In absolute terms. But the percentage of people in the world in poverty has been falling for a long time and the paper doesn't refute that.
    so what do I know

  35. #135
    Bounce Flag Co-Owner


    gun ainm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Hebrides
    Posts
    4,096
    Post Thanks / Like
    Contribute If you enjoy reading the
    content here, click the below
    image to support our site.
    Click Here To Contribute To Our Site

    vCash
    1000
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    559 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by HenryLB View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    It's more about whether you want to work in actual numbers or percentages. I think it's a bit deceptive to use the former to discuss a period in which the global population has more than doubled.
    that's an overly simplistic analysis in my view - there is no linear relationship between poverty and the number of people in the world. Yes we have another 3 billion or so people since 1980 on this little planet and 'only' an additional 500 million in poverty. if you view that as the triumph of capitalism then we'll just have to agree to differ

    The post-colonial period also saw a massive adoption of liberalised markets globally. You seem to say that anything you like isn't capitalism and anything you don't like is, so capitalist countries that employ some protectionism are enjoying success because of the protectionism, not the market which underpins their activity. Take you view of Greece - the idea that before forced EU fiscal measures it was not essentially capitalist is rather odd. You can certainly disagree with deregulation but if you think it was a golden age before, you are going to have to acknowledge the essentially free market nature of that golden age.
    briefly - I'm talking about a spectrum of application, in the 1980s predominantly free market theory (neoliberalism) overtook predominantly Keynsaian (protectionist/state managed) versions of capitalism. I see the former as more authentic capitalism as it were - with the focus being on the market as the ultimate driver of the economy.

    I wouldn't describe re bail out Greece or the post colonial global south as being golden age. I would say that neo liberal solutions to the problems they faced haven't provided solutions that are of benefit to the people of those countries - in fact I'd conclude the reverse.

    And I had thought you were in favour of the EU. Which after all is a capitalist entity, apart from its external protectionism which inarguably increases global poverty. So it's a perfect example of the reverse of your arguments - were free markets employed by the EU on imports it would certainly reduce the numbers of poor people.
    I'm not 'in favour' of the EU I chose to vote for remain for a number of reasons but would advocate radical reform of its economic agenda.

    sorry ran out of steam to answer/engage with further points will try and get round to it.
    "The old is dying and the new cannot be born. In this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms can appear"

GoGO Back To Forum

Similar Threads

  1. Labour
    By Kurt in forum Frenchman's Cowshed
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-05-10, 00:16
  2. Politics: Labour and The KGB
    By Smurf in forum Frenchman's Cowshed
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-11-09, 21:40
  3. Next Labour Leader
    By BunnahabhainXXV in forum Frenchman's Cowshed
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 17-02-09, 12:39
  4. How Sad are Labour?
    By BunnahabhainXXV in forum Frenchman's Cowshed
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 26-06-08, 20:41
  5. where should labour go next
    By egb_hibs in forum Frenchman's Cowshed
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 29-09-06, 12:10

User Tag List

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •