Meanwhile in Poland
Discussion
I add that Varoufakis is good at explaining economics, and good at slagging off the unhealthy dominance of mathematical economic theories and models. I had a very clever (and also Polish) LSE-graduate friend (from a time when the LSE was not as wobbly as it may be now), highly trained in mathematical economics and versed in advanced maths, and she agrees with Varoufakis that mathematical economics is mostly tosh. But try telling that to Goldman Sachs, central bankers, or Governments anywhere.
Varoufakis is a very clever guy but, when push came to shove, he was forced to cave in to the EU. I cannot fault him for that, the stakes were huge, pressure must have been enormous and, as we are seeing with Brexit, the EU will fight tooth and nail to retain dominion.
However, for someone so numerate and economically motivated, he has a baffling adherence to big-government and socialism, to the point of it almost being a fundamental blind spot.
I admire him and he's right about a great many issues, but then I could say Hitler was right... about liking Wagner, Bavaria and the Austrian Tirol, and it's only all the other stuff - the murderous regime he created and the World War etc. etc. - I'd strongly disagree with him on. Being a pragmatist means acknowledging no one is right all of the time or about everything.
However, for someone so numerate and economically motivated, he has a baffling adherence to big-government and socialism, to the point of it almost being a fundamental blind spot.
I admire him and he's right about a great many issues, but then I could say Hitler was right... about liking Wagner, Bavaria and the Austrian Tirol, and it's only all the other stuff - the murderous regime he created and the World War etc. etc. - I'd strongly disagree with him on. Being a pragmatist means acknowledging no one is right all of the time or about everything.
Digga said:
...
However, for someone so numerate and economically motivated, he has a baffling adherence to big-government and socialism, to the point of it almost being a fundamental blind spot.
....
It tends to be a default position on PH to deplore big government and socialism, but are those such such terrible things in practice? Was Britain in the 60s a terrible place? Small government and unregulated capitalism have led us to pretty rotten outcomes in many respects. There is a comparison doing the online rounds between life in Denmark and life in the USA. The people of Denmark live under what many Americans and Ph'ers might regard as the dreadful burden of socialism, but they spend less per family than do American families in order to obtain social goods such as education and healthcare, and are happier and arguably as free or freer than those living in the wonderful world of not much Government and free for all capitalism. However, for someone so numerate and economically motivated, he has a baffling adherence to big-government and socialism, to the point of it almost being a fundamental blind spot.
....
Denmark's not so great. The social mobility index is heavily skewed by the compressive effect of a progressive-rate taxation system. If you want to see what's wrong with socialism, as someone from a former Soviet state. "Ah", you might say, the UK has never known 'that' sort of socialism, to which I would reply, that this is only because the likes of me are able to opposite it, the aim of socialism is clear and absolute. There's another thing wrong, specifically with the 1960's in the UK, of which Grenfell Tower is but a single example, but that's probably not something that has blighted your life.
Of course, this does not mean I am opposed to social mobility, the welfare state and a raft of other things which might separate hardcore socialist from ultra-free market capitalist.
Of course, this does not mean I am opposed to social mobility, the welfare state and a raft of other things which might separate hardcore socialist from ultra-free market capitalist.
Why do you assume that my life has been in some way gilded or privileged? You know nothing about me, and if you assume that I have spent my life in some protected bubble you are quite wrong. Your Grenfell remark seems odd. Grenfell looks to me to be an emblem of what has been happening since 1979, and nothing to do with the 60s. High rise architecture was a 60s thing, but paring the state down and running all projects on the tightest of margins was not a 60s thing. You seem also to confuse socialism (as in social democracy within a regulated capitalist system) with communism, but they are not the same thing at all.
Breadvan72 said:
Why do you assume that my life has been in some way gilded or privileged? You know nothing about me, and if you assume that I have spent my life in some protected bubble you are quite wrong.
It was just a cheeky assumption. I'm happy for you to tell me I'm wrong. (Visiting a council house doesn't count.)However, there was absolutely no offence or malice intended.
Breadvan72 said:
Your Grenfell remark seems odd. Grenfell looks to me to be an emblem of what has been happening since 1979, and nothing to do with the 60s. High rise architecture was a 60s thing, but paring the state down and running all projects on the tightest of margins was not a 60s thing.
Grenfell was very much conceived and built in the 60's. It is highly debatable how well the high-rise legacy of the 60s and 70s served its intended recipients. Granted, many of the slums did need bulldozering.Breadvan72 said:
You seem also to confuse socialism (as in social democracy within a regulated capitalist system) with communism, but they are not the same thing at all.
No, it's more that I observe many of the most vociferous and dogmatic elements of the hard left make this connection. Many also seem to have a very strange relationship with capitalism and the free market - the like much it affords yet remain highly critical of it.I am nothing to do with the hard left and am all in favour of capitalism when it is properly regulated.. For me the greatest thinkers and leaders of recent times were people like Keynes and Attlee.
I note your snarky remark about visiting a council house but decline to respond. I don't have to narrate my life story in order to qualify to express an opinion, and even if (which is not the case) I were a scion of privilege, that would not disqualify me from having an opinion.
High rise architecture presents risks for its occupants, and there was much wrong with 60 and 70s housing estate concepts, but the high rise risks can be mitigated. It is at least arguable that risk mitigation was not favoured by the dismantling of local authority in-house departments of architecture, engineering and surveying, or by the cheapest wins public procurement regime.
I note your snarky remark about visiting a council house but decline to respond. I don't have to narrate my life story in order to qualify to express an opinion, and even if (which is not the case) I were a scion of privilege, that would not disqualify me from having an opinion.
High rise architecture presents risks for its occupants, and there was much wrong with 60 and 70s housing estate concepts, but the high rise risks can be mitigated. It is at least arguable that risk mitigation was not favoured by the dismantling of local authority in-house departments of architecture, engineering and surveying, or by the cheapest wins public procurement regime.
Breadvan72 said:
I am nothing to do with the hard left and am all in favour of capitalism when it is properly regulated.. For me the greatest thinkers and leaders of recent times were people like Keynes and Attlee.
I note your snarky remark about visiting a council house but decline to respond. I don't have to narrate my life story in order to qualify to express an opinion, and even if (which is not the case) I were a scion of privilege, that would not disqualify me from having an opinion.
High rise architecture presents risks for its occupants, and there was much wrong with 60 and 70s housing estate concepts, but the high rise risks can be mitigated. It is at least arguable that risk mitigation was not favoured by the dismantling of local authority in-house departments of architecture, engineering and surveying, or by the cheapest wins public procurement regime.
The idea that high-rise building is somehow excessively risky is odd (sure it is more risky than a bungalow). Nor is it emblematic of some sort of 'rich -v- poor' social battle.I note your snarky remark about visiting a council house but decline to respond. I don't have to narrate my life story in order to qualify to express an opinion, and even if (which is not the case) I were a scion of privilege, that would not disqualify me from having an opinion.
High rise architecture presents risks for its occupants, and there was much wrong with 60 and 70s housing estate concepts, but the high rise risks can be mitigated. It is at least arguable that risk mitigation was not favoured by the dismantling of local authority in-house departments of architecture, engineering and surveying, or by the cheapest wins public procurement regime.
The Spanish seem to manage in high-rise buildings. I've a few relatives over there - and every city I have visited in Spain seems to be designed around a very concentrated, inner city apartment building plan. Same for many cities and towns in Italy and France.
A high rise is inherently more risky in the event of fire than a bungalow, but there are things that can be done to reduce the risks. There is nothing inherently rich v poor about a high rise, but when a society chooses to treat "State" as a dirty word, and places maximisation of shareholder value above all else, it is possible that some corners might be cut in relation to looking after some high rises.
Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 24th July 17:31
Digga said:
Varoufakis is a very clever guy but, when push came to shove, he was forced to cave in to the EU. I cannot fault him for that, the stakes were huge, pressure must have been enormous and, as we are seeing with Brexit, the EU will fight tooth and nail to retain dominion.
He didn't cave though, he quit the post when it became clear Syriza and Tsipiras had elected to fold to the EU pressure and not invoke the "nuclear option" of restructuring the debt held under Greek law.egomeister said:
Digga said:
Varoufakis is a very clever guy but, when push came to shove, he was forced to cave in to the EU. I cannot fault him for that, the stakes were huge, pressure must have been enormous and, as we are seeing with Brexit, the EU will fight tooth and nail to retain dominion.
He didn't cave though, he quit the post when it became clear Syriza and Tsipiras had elected to fold to the EU pressure and not invoke the "nuclear option" of restructuring the debt held under Greek law.Digga said:
egomeister said:
Digga said:
Varoufakis is a very clever guy but, when push came to shove, he was forced to cave in to the EU. I cannot fault him for that, the stakes were huge, pressure must have been enormous and, as we are seeing with Brexit, the EU will fight tooth and nail to retain dominion.
He didn't cave though, he quit the post when it became clear Syriza and Tsipiras had elected to fold to the EU pressure and not invoke the "nuclear option" of restructuring the debt held under Greek law.Breadvan72 said:
A high rise is inherently more risky in the event of fire than a bungalow, but there are things that can be done to reduce the risks. There is nothing inherently rich v poor about a high rise, but when a society chooses to treat "State" as a dirty word, and places maximisation of shareholder value above all else, it is possible that some corners might be cut in relation to looking after some high rises.
fEdited by Breadvan72 on Monday 24th July 17:31
king hell Breadvan, you can't say things like that around here, folk will have a heart attack!They (the EU) are also having trouble with Hungary and the Czech Republic. It's ironic that the countries who benefit most from the EU budget are the ones not playing ball.
(Reuters) - The European Union issued a one-month ultimatum to Hungary on Thursday to address its concerns over an education law it says runs counter to the bloc's values or face possible sanctions in court.
Czechs, Hungarians, and Poles have one month to start taking migrants
(Reuters) - The European Union issued a one-month ultimatum to Hungary on Thursday to address its concerns over an education law it says runs counter to the bloc's values or face possible sanctions in court.
Czechs, Hungarians, and Poles have one month to start taking migrants
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff