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

[crankedup]

turbobloke said:

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.

Depends on your own definition of what constitutes a democratic society and a communist state. Somewhere in the middle (its not black/white) you find a Country like China. A half way house if you like where the Company owners have done exceedingly well becoming wealthy and there workers are still poor living in squalor. Not all of course but you see my point I hope. The Communist in the equation is in diluted form, but essentially the little man must do as he is told, that means work hard and make the boss rich, you will stay in your box though. Another example can be found in India working under the same auspices of the so called wealth model, that is the wealth is only distributed to a very small minority.

[crankedup]

turbobloke said:

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.

Are you saying the students will winkle out the best bits that can work from Marx model, its not quite clear.

[crankedup]

turbobloke said:

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.

So it would be so simple to wrap it all up by suggesting the extreme irony in your posts, because we do not very often agree. The financial melt down was brewing for decades, not something hitting earth in an instant like a meteorite. Left/Right/middle it matters very little in the context of the time frame to disaster. So your 'irony' statement is somewhat invalid based upon your own explanation of why you have chose to use it.

[XM5ER]

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.

You're avoiding my Q+As again.
Define need. Define ability.
Who decides need, who decides ability?
All the problems of communism stem from these questions

Back to your question, take a look at the NE USA between 1860 and 1910 and you have a fair approximation. Reality is imperfect because people are, that is why the absolute authority of individuals must be curbed, the rule of the mob is always the rule of the individual through the mob, history demonstrates this.
Student always look at Marx with fresh eyes because they still live in a world where Mum and Dad share the wealth amongst the family, but look what happens when you ask the kids to share their toys.

[turbobloke]

crankedup said:

turbobloke said:

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.

So it would be so simple to wrap it all up by suggesting the extreme irony in your posts, because we do not very often agree. The financial melt down was brewing for decades, not something hitting earth in an instant like a meteorite.

Clinton's egalitarian delusion was operating over many years, it provided toxic debt for the crunch - sure the debt passed through hands and was covered in perfume but it was still junk and it still had Clinton and Achtenberg at its roots i.e. politics. The crunch wasn't slowmo compared to the build-up but who is claiming otherwise? State largesse this side of the pond provided a nice backdrop and Brown at the helm abolishing boom and bust steered us onto the rocks with great accuracy, quicker and for longer than needed to be the case.

[anonymous-user]

turbobloke said:

Clinton's egalitarian delusion...

HUD and CRA expanded massively under Bush Jr, just as government spending has continued to increase under the coalition. Left and right is all a load of bks these days, they are all the same, pandering for the votes of the financially illiterate.

[Prawnboy]

fblm said:

turbobloke said:

Clinton's egalitarian delusion...

Left and right is all a load of bks these days, they are all the same, pandering for the votes of the financially illiterate.

Can i get an Amen.
too right.

[turbobloke]

fblm said:

turbobloke said:

Clinton's egalitarian delusion...

HUD and CRA expanded massively under Bush Jr, just as government spending has continued to increase under the coalition.

Take a look back through links in PH crunch and crash threads. Bush and McCain warned repeatedly about Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac particularly in 2001-2002 but earlier as well. Democrats resisted and kept to their party line, extending loans to people who couldn't afford the repayments. Bush wanted to limit systemic risk by raising GSE capital requirements, compelling pre-approval of new activities, and limiting the size of portfolios. GSEs fought back because, heaven forbid, that would level the playing field for their competitors. As Bush pushed for reform, Fannie and Freddie bought more and more ninja mortgages. Painting that as Bush's fault is disingenuous. Congress blocked until finally passing the Bush reforms, albeit in 2008 after Fannie and Freddie collapsed. Great timing.

fblm said:

Left and right is all a load of bks these days, they are all the same, pandering for the votes of the financially illiterate.

Of course it isn't a load of bks, and apart from that, the above events were emerging a couple or three decades ago. Yes, these days politicians of all parties are failing to tackle the issues, which gives the appearance of homogeneity, but the issues under discussion have roots in the past, and left wing ideology can be identified clearly in those roots.

Prawnboy said:

Can i get an Amen.

Try attending Holy Mass.

[crankedup]

fblm said:

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.

I didn't say increase taxation, I suggested that if every Company paid its share of tax it would help, that is balance the books or offer more flexibility into the taxation in other areas. I didn't say it would provide a fix.

Capitalism is not entirely broken ! But it is certainly creaking at every joint and regular plaster strips are more often than not required. If Germany decides it no longer intends to assist Italy, Spain in monetary terms the fall out will be catastrophic in business and social terms. Is that Capitalism working - no. We agree about the vast debts, but you cannot separate Democracy from Capitalism, the two are entwined, one cannot survive without the other. Although I must mention China again alongside India and you see a mix of culture, business, wealth creation and how those aspects are clearly seen to be segregated between the top and the bottom of the social order, a huge gap. If its Capitalism creating this, and it must be, then the model will implode as those at the bottom will only suffer on for a short term, in the vain belief that they to will enjoy the fruits of wealth.

I do believe that whilst every person is offered an equal opportunity and self betterment is available, this sentiment is beginning to ring rather hollow. The massive Corporations simply crush any small fry, as Marx stated, the World will be run by five or six massive Conglomerates.

[crankedup]

turbobloke said:

crankedup said:

turbobloke said:

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.

So it would be so simple to wrap it all up by suggesting the extreme irony in your posts, because we do not very often agree. The financial melt down was brewing for decades, not something hitting earth in an instant like a meteorite.

Clinton's egalitarian delusion was operating over many years, it provided toxic debt for the crunch - sure the debt passed through hands and was covered in perfume but it was still junk and it still had Clinton and Achtenberg at its roots i.e. politics. The crunch wasn't slowmo compared to the build-up but who is claiming otherwise? State largesse this side of the pond provided a nice backdrop and Brown at the helm abolishing boom and bust steered us onto the rocks with great accuracy, quicker and for longer than needed to be the case.

We agree, I would also add Thatcher into the mix with the introduction of de-regulation, then helped on by successive Governments. I recall much talk of Global Markets, perhaps we cannot survive without but then this Market has not helped us, much because we loved importing!

[turbobloke]

crankedup said:

turbobloke said:

crankedup said:

turbobloke said:

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.

So it would be so simple to wrap it all up by suggesting the extreme irony in your posts, because we do not very often agree. The financial melt down was brewing for decades, not something hitting earth in an instant like a meteorite.

Clinton's egalitarian delusion was operating over many years, it provided toxic debt for the crunch - sure the debt passed through hands and was covered in perfume but it was still junk and it still had Clinton and Achtenberg at its roots i.e. politics. The crunch wasn't slowmo compared to the build-up but who is claiming otherwise? State largesse this side of the pond provided a nice backdrop and Brown at the helm abolishing boom and bust steered us onto the rocks with great accuracy, quicker and for longer than needed to be the case.

We agree, I would also add Thatcher into the mix with the introduction of de-regulation, then helped on by successive Governments. I recall much talk of Global Markets, perhaps we cannot survive without but then this Market has not helped us, much because we loved importing!

Fair enough, mostly!

Underneath it all, capitalism is still helping to improve quality of life and politicians are still basically useless. One colour of tie, blue with a hint of purple is less useless as shown by a comparison of track records over the last ~40 years.

[crankedup]

XM5ER said:

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.

You're avoiding my Q+As again.
Define need. Define ability.
Who decides need, who decides ability?
All the problems of communism stem from these questions

Back to your question, take a look at the NE USA between 1860 and 1910 and you have a fair approximation. Reality is imperfect because people are, that is why the absolute authority of individuals must be curbed, the rule of the mob is always the rule of the individual through the mob, history demonstrates this.
Student always look at Marx with fresh eyes because they still live in a world where Mum and Dad share the wealth amongst the family, but look what happens when you ask the kids to share their toys.

You have me mixed up with another poster me thinks regards your first para'.

Second para' makes easy clear sense, but I would not advocate a Marxist economy but would suggest its always worth reading and maybe cherry picking some of his ideals to see if they could be incorporated into a economy such as U.K.

Simply as an exercise my definitions from the back of an matchbox :
NEED : a multi faceted variable dependant upon multi faceted perceptions and objectives.
ABILITY : ditto
DECISION MAKERS :ditto

Best I can do I'm afraid, at least for now, but I shall have another stab at it later.

[chris watton]

crankedup said:

We agree, I would also add Thatcher into the mix with the introduction of de-regulation, then helped on by successive Governments. I recall much talk of Global Markets, perhaps we cannot survive without but then this Market has not helped us, much because we loved importing!

Good points.

Also - I must apologise for any personal dig at you in my earlier posts, they were uncalled for, and just because we don't agree on political issues, that shouldn't mean we trade silly insults. none of us are perfect, least of all me!

[sidicks]

fido said:

+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?

Because it wasn't worth zero?

[Hackney]

sidicks said:

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.

I did not say that one tenth is "slightly less", I said "a slightly less hideous amount". In the real world £100 billion or £1 trillion are just fantastically large amounts of money, even in comparison to Premier League footballer wages.

Didn't RBS do a fairly good job of destroying their own business, isn't that why they needed a bailout?

[Hackney]

fblm said:

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 fblm on Thursday 4th September 15:56

Thanks, do I get a prize?
The article quoted a figure, someone refuted that figure without providing an answer which to my mind is playground arguing. "You're wrong. Because I say so"
I could have googled and got a figure from somewhere. But the poster would undoubtedly have criticised the absolute value (You got the size of the bailout wrong you commie)when the real issue is that there was a bailout at all.

And this post proves my point

Mrr T said:

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.

[Hackney]

XM5ER said:

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?

Hitler was a "bad apple"? Are you?

[Hackney]

It's amazing how dumb capitalists can be.

Quote Marx and you're advocating communism.
Question the bailout of the banks and quibble because you quoted the wrong value.
Use an example to illustrate a point and it goes way over their heads.
Agree with a point in the original article and you may aswell be the author as you clearly agree with every single point he made and back his argument to the hilt.

FWIW I'm not a marxist, a communist or a sandal wearing libdem.

[turbobloke]

Hackney said:

It's amazing how dumb capitalists can be.

[Hackney]

fblm said:

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)

No irony at all.
Billions lost to companies, one billion to benefit fraud. Why does the right wing (press) focus on benefit fraud when there are billions to go after in corporate fraud? The article isn't suggesting we don't target benefit fraudsters and neither am I