Jeremy Corbyn Vol. 2
Discussion
Dr Jekyll said:
+1
And if you do need people to design the robots, that's where the employment comes from. Just as now people are employed to design build and drive tractors rather than to walk around in the mud wielding spades.
Sorry, it still makes no sense. The person with capital is going to give you it for a one off payment for ever? The person who owns the commodities are just going to let your robots dig up their land for free for ever more.And if you do need people to design the robots, that's where the employment comes from. Just as now people are employed to design build and drive tractors rather than to walk around in the mud wielding spades.
Beyond ridiculous.
ellroy said:
Dr Jekyll said:
+1
And if you do need people to design the robots, that's where the employment comes from. Just as now people are employed to design build and drive tractors rather than to walk around in the mud wielding spades.
Sorry, it still makes no sense. The person with capital is going to give you it for a one off payment for ever? The person who owns the commodities are just going to let your robots dig up their land for free for ever more.And if you do need people to design the robots, that's where the employment comes from. Just as now people are employed to design build and drive tractors rather than to walk around in the mud wielding spades.
Beyond ridiculous.
How in the name of blazes can be able to produce more stuff make everyone poorer?
Even in the extreme (frankly ludicrous) scenario where everything can be produced without labour at all, IE free. Then either everybody collects what they want so don't need a job. Or someone people aren't able to, in which case jobs are still available producing what they want.
Even in the extreme (frankly ludicrous) scenario where everything can be produced without labour at all, IE free. Then either everybody collects what they want so don't need a job. Or someone people aren't able to, in which case jobs are still available producing what they want.
Interesting point. A friend of mine went on a tour of a car plant which had robots carrying out large amounts of the work involved, with tour guide proudly stating how many people had been replaced by the robots. My Friend asked the tour guide what beer the robots drank, the guide looked puzzled, and said, `don't know what you mean'. He then asked if the robots liked football or curry, or were going to buy a house or even one of the vehicles being made, and again the blank look appeared on the guides face. The friend then made the point that the robots were making well made cars (and other things) which `people' could now no longer afford, because a robot had put them out of their paying job. As posted above an interesting point?
Dr Jekyll said:
How in the name of blazes can be able to produce more stuff make everyone poorer?
Even in the extreme (frankly ludicrous) scenario where everything can be produced without labour at all, IE free. Then either everybody collects what they want so don't need a job. Or someone people aren't able to, in which case jobs are still available producing what they want.
Watch Wall-eEven in the extreme (frankly ludicrous) scenario where everything can be produced without labour at all, IE free. Then either everybody collects what they want so don't need a job. Or someone people aren't able to, in which case jobs are still available producing what they want.
Kermit power said:
Stickyfinger said:
spouting the same crap on other threads...rinse/repeat the same stuff.
I do not think he has posted anything "automotive" yet
Who... Tristram Hunt? I do not think he has posted anything "automotive" yet
So, another moderate Labour MP resigns to pursue another job, with no public expression of Corbyn being the reason.
Is this a coordinated policy to defeat Corbyn by a "death of a thousand by-elections"?
Kermit power said:
fblm said:
Carl_Manchester said:
It says what the axes are in the headings.Blib said:
I suppose that Hunt's assumption is that he would have been de-selected for the next election. So, there's nothing for him to lose and the result of the by-election could severely damage Jeremy.
I'm not sure about the "damage Jeremy" aspect - he's probably far enough out of the power base he probably doesn't care about that anymore.I guess the prospects of an important, interesting job in the shadow cabinet are remote for a moderate right now. Furthermore, the chance of that morph into a cabinet post and therefore real power are vanishingly remote. So better to call it quits and move onto a new role while he has value.
I agree about the job offer being an important aspect of his decision.
Still, excellent timing for Corbyn's enemies.
It's such a shame that this government is not being put under effective scrutiny in the House. Unfortunately, until Corbyn and his cabal are pushed out, Mrs May will have almost free reign.
During such an important period of our nation's history, this is a desperate situation to find ourselves in.
Still, excellent timing for Corbyn's enemies.
It's such a shame that this government is not being put under effective scrutiny in the House. Unfortunately, until Corbyn and his cabal are pushed out, Mrs May will have almost free reign.
During such an important period of our nation's history, this is a desperate situation to find ourselves in.
mcdjl said:
ellroy said:
Sorry, it still makes no sense. The person with capital is going to give you it for a one off payment for ever? The person who owns the commodities are just going to let your robots dig up their land for free for ever more.
Beyond ridiculous.
So the people that design the robots work for free (even if its the first robots) while everyone else sits on their bums and gets given stuff. Sounds like a version of communism where no one works.Beyond ridiculous.
"At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or – this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms – with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution." - author at the end of my post.
If you are interested in the long held economic theories about what happens next to Capitalism, it depends on your view on consumption of goods.
If you believe that the consumption of goods will keep going up then that puts you in one camp, if you believe that the consumption of goods will naturally hit a plateau then you are in another camp.
As a capitalist, I believe that capitalism needs to be reformed as in order to prepare us to go one way or the other on this issue.
It appears to be, as of 2016 (no crystal ball for 2017), that while we will always buy replacements if they break, there is only so many IPhone's, Cars and other personal items that can be consumed in the world currently without profit margins becoming so slight that almost full automation of production for all major products is inevitable.
The big question for me, is what happens to society in the countries that are developed in an un-balanced way to the rest of the worlds population, like ours. Starving people in the world will probably want an Iphone at some stage although, they may not know it yet.
We (the G7) control the means of production, we are already seeing wage stagnation, erosion of worker rights and an increasing tide of automation.
What is supposed to happen next is theorised by Karl Marx and that is where the quote came from. If interested have a google around for 'economic Crisis Theory'.
If you buy into it all we will reach a tipping point where socialism becomes the only transitional state of advanced capitalism and then into advanced communism.
As anyone who has watched star trek will know, in the future we are all communists, just not in the U.S.S.R sense, as in 'my 3d printer just created a Ferrari F488 in my garage for me to drive at the weekend' sense.
Because of the way economic theory is taught in schools, the mere typing of communism on the keyboard here draws up visions of being placed on a watch list somewhere and this has given no oxygen to debate about whether our current model of capitalism is already broken if you can only create growth via ever increasing levels of debt.
Carl_Manchester said:
.....................
If you believe that the consumption of goods will keep going up then that puts you in one camp, if you believe that the consumption of goods will naturally hit a plateau then you are in another camp.
More accurately, if you believe all human wants are on the verge of being satisfied then you are in the Marxist camp. Also known as the 'lump of labour' theory.If you believe that the consumption of goods will keep going up then that puts you in one camp, if you believe that the consumption of goods will naturally hit a plateau then you are in another camp.
Carl_Manchester said:
As a capitalist, I believe that capitalism needs to be reformed as in order to prepare us to go one way or the other on this issue.
It appears to be, as of 2016 (no crystal ball for 2017), that while we will always buy replacements if they break, there is only so many IPhone's, Cars and other personal items that can be consumed in the world currently without profit margins becoming so slight that almost full automation of production for all major products is inevitable.
It appears to be, as of 2016 (no crystal ball for 2017), that while we will always buy replacements if they break, there is only so many IPhone's, Cars and other personal items that can be consumed in the world currently without profit margins becoming so slight that almost full automation of production for all major products is inevitable.
Actually you're a Marxist.
Carl_Manchester said:
........................................................................................................Because of the way economic theory is taught in schools, the mere typing of communism on the keyboard here draws up visions of being placed on a watch list somewhere and this has given no oxygen to debate about whether our current model of capitalism is already broken if you can only create growth via ever increasing levels of debt.
It's not because of the way economic theory is taught in schools, it's because every communist country everywhere ends up with watch lists.It's actually teachers and lecturers who are at the forefront of arguing that communism would work if only it is properly tried. Hailing China Cuba and now Venezuela with cries of 'this time it's different' only to lapse into an embarrassed silence when people start queueing up for toilet rolls.
Dr Jekyll said:
...only to lapse into an embarrassed silence when people start queueing up for toilet rolls.
If only that were true. Look at all the posts on here and the likes of EE Corbyn all waxing lyrical about how wonderful Cuba is. Don't see too many emigrating there though do we. Our 'liberals' still seem to think communism is just fvcking great. Such fantastic education and healthcare! For other people of course; they still like their cars, hobbies, foreign holidays, freedom of speech, voting rights... and shops with toilet rolls. Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 14th January 13:37
Dr Jekyll said:
stuff
I think you mis-understood my post but that is fine, your polarised response to open debate on the topic illustrated my point in a way I could not have. I used the Marx quotes as they seem to resonate well with what what will happen in the future, in terms of the now.....Reforming the current way's of reagan/thatcher Capitalism does not mean 'its time for Marxism' but what it does mean, for me at least, is that the liberal part of Capitalism needs to be chopped off.
As an example, I have picked another two quotes:
“It’s everything related to jobs. The conservatives are going to go crazy. I’m the guy pushing a trillion-dollar infrastructure plan,” “With negative interest rates throughout the world, it’s the greatest opportunity to rebuild everything. Shipyards, ironworks, get them all jacked up. We’re just going to throw it up against the wall and see if it sticks. It will be as exciting as the 1930s, greater than the Reagan revolution — conservatives, plus populists, in an economic nationalist movement.”.
By exchanging some of the words, this could have been said by Corbyn or a member of his team.
One more.
"The globalists gutted the American working class and created a middle class in Asia. The issue now is about Americans looking to not get f—ed over. If we deliver" — by "we" he means the Trump White House — "we'll get 60 percent of the white vote, and 40 percent of the black and Hispanic vote and we'll govern for 50 years. That's what the Democrats missed. They were talking to these people with companies with a $9 billion market cap employing nine people. It's not reality. They lost sight of what the world is about."
The above quotes were taken from November and they are from Trumps right hand man and soon to be white house strategist, Steve Bannon.
And these are the potential vote winning buttons that Corbyn should be pushing as they resonate on both sides of the political divide.
Carl_Manchester said:
By exchanging some of the words, this could have been said by Corbyn or a member of his team.
I agree with your point. Except this bit. Corbyn (and his 'team'/coterie of slack jawed six formers) show time and time again that they do not know the difference between investment and spending.fblm said:
Carl_Manchester said:
By exchanging some of the words, this could have been said by Corbyn or a member of his team.
I agree with your point. Except this bit. Corbyn (and his 'team'/coterie of slack jawed six formers) show time and time again that they do not know the difference between investment and spending.As far as I can tell, "investment" to Corbynistas means "pay rises for public sector workers" and nothing else.
The GMB is apparently not happy about Corbyn's favoured candidate for the Copeland by-election.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/union-fury-...
(paywall)
"A row has erupted within Labour over who should fight a crucial by-election, with members of a powerful union refusing to back Jeremy Corbyn’s preferred candidate.
Prominent members of the GMB are angry that Thomas Docherty, the pro-nuclear former MP for Dunfermline & West Fife, was not on the shortlist of three candidates to fight the Cumbrian seat of Copeland. The seat is home to the Sellafield nuclear plant, a significant employer."
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/union-fury-...
(paywall)
"A row has erupted within Labour over who should fight a crucial by-election, with members of a powerful union refusing to back Jeremy Corbyn’s preferred candidate.
Prominent members of the GMB are angry that Thomas Docherty, the pro-nuclear former MP for Dunfermline & West Fife, was not on the shortlist of three candidates to fight the Cumbrian seat of Copeland. The seat is home to the Sellafield nuclear plant, a significant employer."
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff