It's socialism for the rich, capitalism for the rest of us

[Hackney]

chris watton said:

It was a Labour government who decided to bail out the banks. wasn't it?

I don't recall the population being asked, do you?

Someone had to clear up the mess made by the capitalists

[chris watton]

Hackney said:

chris watton said:

It was a Labour government who decided to bail out the banks. wasn't it?

I don't recall the population being asked, do you?

Someone had to clear up the mess made by the capitalists

Using other people's money, of course..;)

[anonymous-user]

Hackney said:

1. How much then? From where? Because there's no doubt that the banks were bailed out.

£123bn. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check-...

Hackney said:

2. 12 times bigger? 12 times better for the country?

Last year the financial sevices sector in the UK employed 1 million people or 4% of the UK's workforce and paid £65bn in tax or 12% of your countries total including over 16% of all corporation tax. (Up from £63bn the year before). You are completely fvcked without it and thats why the City is under constant attack from your EU friends who want their business back.
http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/business/economic-r...

Hackney said:

3. Too much lending and not enough lending are both issues worthy of criticism. How about the banks try and get it right?

Banks WANT to lend, its how they make money. They can't increase their capital reserves to become safer AND increase lending. Which do you want?

Hackney said:

4. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need", pay someone enough and they can afford to be taxed appropriately. Who would agree with low pay and taxes - which is what we have now.

Read Sidicks post again. He is quite rightly pointing out the stupidity of taxing the low paid only to make them dependant on tax credits and other benefits. I wonder why Labour were so keen to create a class of worker entirely dependant on government largesse? It is Blair and Browns most shameful legacy.
http://cdn2.spectator.co.uk/files/2012/12/Screen-S...

Hackney said:

5. Trouble is they're neither appropriate nor good value when provided by companies like those listed

What is your metric for good value? The public sector has an almost unmatched ablity to deliver abysmal value for money. Are they better or worse? £4bn? New Labour signed up to £169bn PFI contracts!!!

Hackney said:

7. "See, nothings wrong because they do it too!" brilliant argument. News International is rife with crooks, does that mean they can't report on fraud, deception, privacy laws, drugs cases?

Oh the irony, the article uses exactly the same argument; "Compare the billions lost through tax avoidance to the £1.2bn lost through benefit fraud, an issue that remains the news fodder of choice for the right wing press." See nothings wrong with benefit fraud because they avoid taxes. (Ignoring the fact that precisely nothing is "lost" to tax avoidance by definition)



And the OP wonders why few people were bothered critiquing his article!

Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 4th September 15:46

[sidicks]

Hackney said:

I didn't google it because I wanted it to be your answer, so you couldn't argue with it.
The banks [b]did[/] receive a bailout then? Of an only slightly less hideous amount than the article quoted? Yes?

So approximately one tenth is 'slightly less' in your eyes?

With maths like that, you weren't in the exchequer for the last Labour government were you?

Hackney said:

I await with interest (both kinds) for this bailout to be repaid.

As far as RBS is concerned, to appease the ill-informed public (people like you?!) the government has destroyed much of their business, thereby restricting the extent to which they can make profits to justify the share price at which the government invested in the first place.

[anonymous-user]

Hackney said:

I didn't google it because I wanted it to be your answer, so you couldn't argue with it.

That's the dumbest thing I've read on PH in quite some time. Congratulations.

You live in a country that a few years ago had to bail out one of its biggest banks with a MASSIVE amount of public money and here you are discussing it and expecting to be taken seriously. You shouldn't need to google it, it's your money, you should fvcking know.

Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 4th September 15:56

[Mrr T]

fblm said:

Hackney said:

1. How much then? From where? Because there's no doubt that the banks were bailed out.

£123bn. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check-...

You may not have noticed the date on the article is 2011.

The figures is now quite a lot lower. The Government subscribed for Lloyds shares at 74.50 and they are now above that. RBS are still some way below the subscription value but are 50% higher than the prices used in the article.

[crankedup]

Prawnboy said:

crankedup said:

'Something between the two extremes' (do you really need to get so personal?)

your questioning the status-quo, that makes you a Marxist, there is only black & white round here.

Yes indeed, it would seem so for some people, and there was I thinking 50 shades of grey had some meaning to it.

[fido]

sidicks said:

As far as RBS is concerned, to appease the ill-informed public (people like you?!) the government has destroyed much of their business, thereby restricting the extent to which they can make profits to justify the share price at which the government invested in the first place.

+1. As Warren Buffet has often said [about the Banks] why didn't they just zero out the shares in RBS i.e. nationalise it? Then they could have clawed back even more back for the 'taxpayer'. Labour also managed to cripple the cautious [until they merged with HBOS] Lloyds. Then the whole political witch-hunt around Barclays. Of course this was political!

[crankedup]

graphene said:

crankedup said:

Capitalism is on the other hand working oh so well! Europe imploding (PIGS) America a little in debt and jolly little U.K. just about bust. Still we will ignore that and party on in blind faith. (cue the question 'well what would you do'?)

Capitalism doesn't make the laws and regulation, or set the foreign policy, or tell the banks when to print more money to support the spending beyond means of governments who are, almost, out of control.

So your suggesting that Capitalism can work in a non democratic society. That would be the Chinese model then, Capitalism for the wealthy only for these people to become more wealthy at the expense of the working class. That works for short termism gain but soon splutters out when the workers have 'had enough gruel'.

[sidicks]

Mrr T said:

You may not have noticed the date on the article is 2011.

The figures is now quite a lot lower. The Government subscribed for Lloyds shares at 74.50 and they are now above that. RBS are still some way below the subscription value but are 50% higher than the prices used in the article.

Precisely for the reasons outlined above - hardly the fault of the banks!!

[turbobloke]

crankedup said:

graphene said:

crankedup said:

Capitalism is on the other hand working oh so well! Europe imploding (PIGS) America a little in debt and jolly little U.K. just about bust. Still we will ignore that and party on in blind faith. (cue the question 'well what would you do'?)

Capitalism doesn't make the laws and regulation, or set the foreign policy, or tell the banks when to print more money to support the spending beyond means of governments who are, almost, out of control.

So your suggesting that Capitalism can work in a non democratic society.

You've read a different post to the one I read. There was a mention of governments (types not specified) but nowhere did it mention a non-democratic society, which must be something you wished or imagined to make replying possible/easier.

However, in terms of non-democratic governance if you were inspired by the Eurozone and the unelected eurodrones trying to manage numerous EU failures by diktat then that would partly explain it.

[crankedup]

turbobloke said:

chris watton said:

crankedup said:

turbobloke said:

Hackney said:

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need

Pure and simple Marxism.

So, this is relevant once again...

Capitalism is on the other hand working oh so well! Europe imploding (PIGS) America a little in debt and jolly little U.K. just about bust. Still we will ignore that and party on in blind faith. (cue the question 'well what would you do'?)

I am so pleased that the white sock and sandal brigade of lib dems, like yourself are now in such a tiny minority, it's doubtful you'll survive the next GE. Not everyone thinks communism is great, especially people who have lived in ex communist country's...

LibDem wipeout ahead, and much deserved.

The irony in crankedup's post is off the scale.

Capitalism is and always has worked well to improve our quality of life, political interference on the other hand has frequently been disastrous with Labour in the 70s taking the UK cap in hand to the IMF, Labour's recent national trainwreck with Liam Byrne telling everyone "there's no money left" and with Clinton's egalitarian delusion forcing mortage lenders to give loans to people who had no hope of sustaining the repayments.

The reason why western democracies are nearly bust, or already there and living off borrowed time and borrowed money, boils down to that vague and open-ended utopian Marxist statement, which successive politicians have tried to achieve to varying degrees through welfare largesse. It's unworkable and unaffordable.

There is a reasonable position, which we're not close to as yet.

To each person dealt a carp hand in life who genuinely cannot support themselves, money from taxation should provide a comfortable quality of life.

To others in need of support to get through a rough patch, money from taxation should provide a temporary basic safety net.

Beyond that, nothing is needed.

Getting to such a point is going to be extremely difficult given the historical backdrop of hardworking class taxpayers' money being spunked up the welfare wall. When all the one-off loans to banks are paid back, the welfare budget will still be over £200bn each year compared to the total loans of £120bn.

No irony in my post at all. The fact of the matter is my post to which you respond is accurate, albeit basic. But then a detailed explanation is not required for we must all know the financial situation most of Europe is in, and America likewise. This being the reason of my statement which was broadly : Capitalism is failing. Of course matters would improve if every Company paid its share of tax.

[anonymous-user]

Mrr T said:

You may not have noticed the date on the article is 2011.

The figures is now quite a lot lower. The Government subscribed for Lloyds shares at 74.50 and they are now above that. RBS are still some way below the subscription value but are 50% higher than the prices used in the article.

I did notice the date, I've been linking to it for the open mouthed on here since then! (Got to love that it is a Guardian piece which they are programmed to accept blindly!) You're right of course that the final cost of the bailouts are and will be considerably lower taking into account the value of the banks but that figure is fair as the actual cash cost at the time to tax payers ignoring the asset value.

[turbobloke]

crankedup said:

No irony in my post at all.

There is, and plenty of it, because the root and some of the branches in recent economic debacles lie with left-leaning politicians and their incompetent meddling, not capitalism per se.

[crankedup]

chris watton said:

turbobloke said:

chris watton said:

crankedup said:

turbobloke said:

Hackney said:

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need

Pure and simple Marxism.

So, this is relevant once again...

Capitalism is on the other hand working oh so well! Europe imploding (PIGS) America a little in debt and jolly little U.K. just about bust. Still we will ignore that and party on in blind faith. (cue the question 'well what would you do'?)

I am so pleased that the white sock and sandal brigade of lib dems, like yourself are now in such a tiny minority, it's doubtful you'll survive the next GE. Not everyone thinks communism is great, especially people who have lived in ex communist country's...

LibDem wipeout ahead, and much deserved.

The irony in crankedup's post is off the scale.

Capitalism is and always has worked well to improve our quality of life, political interference on the other hand has frequently been disastrous with Labour in the 70s taking the UK cap in hand to the IMF, Labour's recent national trainwreck with Liam Byrne telling everyone "there's no money left" and with Clinton's egalitarian delusion forcing mortage lenders to give loans to people who had no hope of sustaining the repayments.

The reason why western democracies are nearly bust, or already there and living off borrowed time and borrowed money, boils down to that vague and open-ended utopian Marxist statement, which successive politicians have tried to achieve to varying degrees through welfare largesse. It's unworkable and unaffordable.

There is a reasonable position, which we're not close to as yet.

To each person dealt a carp hand in life who genuinely cannot support themselves, money from taxation should provide a comfortable quality of life.

To others in need of support to get through a rough patch, money from taxation should provide a temporary basic safety net.

Beyond that, nothing is needed.

Getting to such a point is going to be extremely difficult given the historical backdrop of hardworking class taxpayers' money being spunked up the welfare wall. When all the one-off loans to banks are paid back, the welfare budget will still be over £200bn each year compared to the total loans of £120bn.

I agree.

Some of us live our lives well within our means, pay our taxes and keep our noses clean - yet for some, this still isn't enough. they want me to contribute even more because other's cannot stop spending what they do not have.

It's like the obese blaming sugar for their size, when cutting down and exercising is all that is needed - a mad, crazy world where hardly anyone takes personal responsibility for their lives be it personal finances or health. I find that, on the whole, people like this like Labour, lib dems and a huge state to tell then what to do and think - and keep taking the government (read taxpayers) coin - and always blame and try to bite the proverbial hand that feeds them.

As I get older, this becomes ever more apparent.

ASAIAC, the likes of crankedup et all deserve ridicule.

Quite right! wealth sucking Commies who laze about all day every day living off 'all the working people'.
Mate, you need to get out more, honestly you do.

[XM5ER]

Hackney said:

Where did I advocate socialism? Or communism?

Here

Hackney said:

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need

and here

Hackney said:

Communism would work if it wasn't for the bds who end up at the top.

No it wont because people exist.

Hackney said:

Marx's quote is completely invalidated to you because there have been some right bd communists.
As I said, does that mean the Volkswagen was a bad idea because Hitler had it?

Conflated stupidity. 94million dead and we're talking about VW and a few bad apples, are you insane?

Hackney said:

You said we've got some lilly livered version of capitalism which, ie an imperfect version.
The same can be said about communism. There has never been a "perfect" version because someone always lets the power corrupt them.

Imperfection piled on imperfection results in lovely organisations like the Stazi and the creation of Gulags

Hackney said:

And thanks for the patronising comments.

You're welcome.

You never commented on this bit.

Define need. Define ability.
Who decides need, who decides ability?
All the problems of communism stem from these questions.

[anonymous-user]

crankedup said:

Capitalism is failing. Of course matters would improve if every Company paid its share of tax.

How? Company taxation is a tax on customers, employees and owners. How will increasing taxes 'fix' capitalism?
If capitalism is indeed broken, and I'm far from convinced it is, it is due to the vast debts and even bigger liabilities accumulated by governments the world over to buy the votes of idiots. If anything it's democracy that's broken and capitalism, for all its faults, is the only thing keeping the whole damn show on the road.

[turbobloke]

crankedup said:

...wealth sucking Commies who laze about all day every day living off 'all the working people'...need to get out more...

Possibly, to work even longer hours to support the mass of non-familial dependents relying on tax from the hardworking class.

crankedup said:

Capitalism is failing.

No, but reasoning by assertion always will.

Politicians mostly of the left-ish variety, on the other hand, have established a serious track record of failure in terms of their incompetent interference.

[crankedup]

XM5ER said:

Hackney said:

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need

Problem with that:
Define need. Define ability.
Who decides need, who decides ability?
All the problems of communism stem from these questions

Hackney said:

I may have used a Marx quote, to illustrate a point but that doesn't make me Stalin / Mao or even Che Guevara.
Someone advocated Ayne Rand as explaining why capitalism is "the answer" when she was as [-]mental[/] extreme as an communist.

No, I said that fatuous prique OJ doesn't actually understand what capitalism is, the cronyised version we have of it here (and sadly the US too) is a pale shadow of what it should be.

Followers of Marx killed approximately 94 million people, Fascist Collectivists a few less, Religious Collectivists quite a few, Feudal collectivists a fair number.

Followers of Objectivist philosophy built a few businesses and employed a few people. Who's mentally ill again?

I'm genuinely interested in your definition of exactly how a Capitalistic society should operate within a democratic society. Much is condemned regarding the Marx model and yet we have young students now re-visiting his idea's and shock/horror suggesting he wasn't quite wrong at all levels after all. I wouldn't suggest that the Marxist model should be adopted but certainly not discount all of his work on the basis of prejudices.

[turbobloke]

crankedup said:

I'm genuinely interested in your definition of exactly how a Capitalistic society should operate within a democratic society. Much is condemned regarding the Marx model and yet we have young students now re-visiting his idea's and shock/horror suggesting he wasn't quite wrong at all levels after all. I wouldn't suggest that the Marxist model should be adopted but certainly not discount all of his work on the basis of prejudices.

Better to discount it because it doesn't work.

Young students, yes they'll fix it with their experience and wisdom.