Jeremy Corbyn Vol. 2

[sidicks]

dimots said:

I accept that free market economics have a lot of positives - but don't be fooled into thinking it's a hard science.

I know I keep referring to progressive politics, and a lot of people on here claim that progressive politics is stupid (and they seem to align it with the left), but it is interesting that support for key progressive features such as a basic income and a maximum wage ratio have both been voted on recently in Switzerland. Yes they were voted down, for now, but it shows the level of concern that even one of the world's most Capitalist countries has about the growing wealth divide.

Why would you use a policy on 'incomes' to address a perceived problem of 'wealth'?

[anonymous-user]

dimots said:

Yes they were voted down, for now, but it shows the level of concern that even one of the world's most Capitalist countries has about the growing wealth divide.

Honest Q. Does it show concern as you state or simply a willingness to listen to the people to ensure that the government has its finger on the pulse?

[ellroy]

Switzerland is pretty much governed by democratic votes in referendum, the parliament can pass laws, but they can be ignored if a referendum says so! I'm not sure what number are required to get one set up in terms of minimum voters required, but given that it surely can't be that many as a result i'd probably not read too much into that vote or many others they hold.

[Goaty Bill 2]

Dr Jekyll said:

Goaty Bill 2 said:

I don't disagree with you there. I share the same preferences.

As has been said earlier, the principal problem with the Marxist utopia, is that it doesn't take account of the greatest variable - people.
Well, of course capitalism suffers to a similar degree from the same issue, those damned people and their independent will and tendency to look after 'number one' first. And don't anyone deny that has also happened under every Marxist regime ever.

The problem for either case always ends with;
Marxism - who decides the fair and equitable distribution
Capitalism - who decides the type and level of controls on business, and the levels of social support for the less fortunate.

But the whole point of a free market is that the tendency of people to 'look after number one', IE keep a roof over their head and give their children the best start in life, is turned to advantage.

Free market has a shortage of toilet rolls. Paper manufacturers say 'the price of toilet rolls has gone up, let's make more'. Supply increases, price drops.

Socialist state has a shortage of toilet rolls. Tough. maybe the price will go up, but if so the govt says 'if people make toilet rolls to take advantage of the higher price they will make a profit, how terrible. Let's fix the price to ensure everyone could afford toilet rolls if they could find them which they can't.' Then blame the shortage on the CIA.

My good doctor, I fear you are exhibiting the extremes of your literary character.
We are without doubt a capitalist-socialist state, neither entirely one nor the other.

Your third paragraph excludes (I am sure quite accidentally) the steps where the 'wreckers' of the state production are discovered and arrested, then forced to sign confessions and sent to the Outer Hebrides work camps, following a brief and well publicised show-trial.
This is a most necessary step.

[Tuna]

dimots said:

I accept that free market economics have a lot of positives - but don't be fooled into thinking it's a hard science.

I know I keep referring to progressive politics, and a lot of people on here claim that progressive politics is stupid (and they seem to align it with the left), but it is interesting that support for key progressive features such as a basic income and a maximum wage ratio have both been voted on recently in Switzerland. Yes they were voted down, for now, but it shows the level of concern that even one of the world's most Capitalist countries has about the growing wealth divide.

It's interesting that as we have had four decades of continuous erosion of absolute poverty that the political classes have moved onto relative poverty as their bette noir. Those that you would probably characterise as being on the right claim that without huge 'capitalist' successes, we wouldn't have seen the huge reduction of disease, hunger and deprivation in the west.

There's the dichotomy that places like Wallmart have made cheap food and goods almost universally available in the US (I don't think anyone could argue about the benefit of that), whilst making the owners extraordinarily rich. The economist's point of view would be that Wallmart was only successful because it offered better value (cheaper and more available products). They didn't have a monopoly on selling stuff, yet they did it better than anyone else. The incentive to do so is clearly that the company itself made money in the process. So we have the case where we've decreased absolute poverty (millions of more people can afford food) whilst increasing relative poverty (a handful of people are very rich).

The jury is still out on minimum wages. Seattle have been at the centre of the social experiment, with an escalating minimum wage. The latest report appears to suggest that above a certain level, minimum wages reduce the number of hours worked and the number of people in employment. In short, you can't "make" work pay better if it's not valued enough, so raising minimum wage above a certain threshold just prices the most vulnerable out of work.

[Goaty Bill 2]

Tuna said:

It's interesting that as we have had four decades of continuous erosion of absolute poverty that the political classes have moved onto relative poverty as their bette noir. Those that you would probably characterise as being on the right claim that without huge 'capitalist' successes, we wouldn't have seen the huge reduction of disease, hunger and deprivation in the west.

There's the dichotomy that places like Wallmart have made cheap food and goods almost universally available in the US (I don't think anyone could argue about the benefit of that), whilst making the owners extraordinarily rich. The economist's point of view would be that Wallmart was only successful because it offered better value (cheaper and more available products). They didn't have a monopoly on selling stuff, yet they did it better than anyone else. The incentive to do so is clearly that the company itself made money in the process. So we have the case where we've decreased absolute poverty (millions of more people can afford food) whilst increasing relative poverty (a handful of people are very rich).

The jury is still out on minimum wages. Seattle have been at the centre of the social experiment, with an escalating minimum wage. The latest report appears to suggest that above a certain level, minimum wages reduce the number of hours worked and the number of people in employment. In short, you can't "make" work pay better if it's not valued enough, so raising minimum wage above a certain threshold just prices the most vulnerable out of work.

Your first paragraph could easily cover women's rights, homosexuality, racism. All the things that have got better decade on decade for forty years or more.
That things could be better is undeniable. It will always be true.
Without the perspective of history, people will reflect and focus only on what they see today, and not consider the progress we have made, continually portraying these times as the worst of times.

That is probably why Corbyn plays so well to the young. He recognises and plays on their natural impatience, and lack of historical perspective.

[AstonZagato]

Tuna said:

It's interesting that as we have had four decades of continuous erosion of absolute poverty that the political classes have moved onto relative poverty as their bette noir. Those that you would probably characterise as being on the right claim that without huge 'capitalist' successes, we wouldn't have seen the huge reduction of disease, hunger and deprivation in the west.

There's the dichotomy that places like Wallmart have made cheap food and goods almost universally available in the US (I don't think anyone could argue about the benefit of that), whilst making the owners extraordinarily rich. The economist's point of view would be that Wallmart was only successful because it offered better value (cheaper and more available products). They didn't have a monopoly on selling stuff, yet they did it better than anyone else. The incentive to do so is clearly that the company itself made money in the process. So we have the case where we've decreased absolute poverty (millions of more people can afford food) whilst increasing relative poverty (a handful of people are very rich).

The jury is still out on minimum wages. Seattle have been at the centre of the social experiment, with an escalating minimum wage. The latest report appears to suggest that above a certain level, minimum wages reduce the number of hours worked and the number of people in employment. In short, you can't "make" work pay better if it's not valued enough, so raising minimum wage above a certain threshold just prices the most vulnerable out of work.

Well said. Absolute poverty should be the benchmark. The relative disparity between richest and poorest is a sideshow. The rich becoming richer is only a problem if they become so rich that they cease to pursue risk with their assets. Their capital needs to be either spent or invested in things which can increase the wealth of the economy.

On Seattle, I usually go a couple of times a year. The one thing that stands out are the number of beggars on the street. Each crossroads in the downtown CBD has four - one on each corner.

I did see one lady beggar holding a sign "Too honest to become a thief, too ugly to become a hooker"

[Moonhawk]

Tuna said:

It's interesting that as we have had four decades of continuous erosion of absolute poverty that the political classes have moved onto relative poverty as their bette noir. Those that you would probably characterise as being on the right claim that without huge 'capitalist' successes, we wouldn't have seen the huge reduction of disease, hunger and deprivation in the west.

There's the dichotomy that places like Wallmart have made cheap food and goods almost universally available in the US (I don't think anyone could argue about the benefit of that), whilst making the owners extraordinarily rich. The economist's point of view would be that Wallmart was only successful because it offered better value (cheaper and more available products). They didn't have a monopoly on selling stuff, yet they did it better than anyone else. The incentive to do so is clearly that the company itself made money in the process. So we have the case where we've decreased absolute poverty (millions of more people can afford food) whilst increasing relative poverty (a handful of people are very rich).

The jury is still out on minimum wages. Seattle have been at the centre of the social experiment, with an escalating minimum wage. The latest report appears to suggest that above a certain level, minimum wages reduce the number of hours worked and the number of people in employment. In short, you can't "make" work pay better if it's not valued enough, so raising minimum wage above a certain threshold just prices the most vulnerable out of work.

This is very true median household income has grown in real terms almost year on year and currently sits around double what it was in the late 1970s.



It's often cited that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. But is this actually true. Is the reality that the rich are getting richer - and the poor are getting richer - but just not as fast.



Fewer people in absolute poverty is a good thing - yet the left seem to keep banging the 'relative wealth' drum. Why? Is the motivating factor here envy?

[Tuna]

AstonZagato said:

The rich becoming richer is only a problem if they become so rich that they cease to pursue risk with their assets. Their capital needs to be either spent or invested in things which can increase the wealth of the economy.

Which is why I'm happy to see:

* Elon Musk has created a whole new company just to produce electric vehicles.
* Bill Gates is actively working to eliminate diseases on a global scale
* Jeff Bezos is building space rockets.

I mean seriously, we've generated enough wealth that we're actually considering living on another planet.

[Mothersruin]

Tuna said:

AstonZagato said:

The rich becoming richer is only a problem if they become so rich that they cease to pursue risk with their assets. Their capital needs to be either spent or invested in things which can increase the wealth of the economy.

Which is why I'm happy to see:

* Elon Musk has created a whole new company just to produce electric vehicles.
* Bill Gates is actively working to eliminate diseases on a global scale
* Jeff Bezos is building space rockets.

I mean seriously, we've generated enough wealth that we're actually considering living on another planet.

JC would tax them out of any thoughts of using what's left to contribute to the local economy, let alone human development.

[BlackLabel]

Jon Snow embraces his inner Corbynista at Glastonbury.

https://order-order.com/2017/06/27/theres-snow-thi...

Edited by BlackLabel on Tuesday 27th June 14:55

[Mark Benson]

Moonhawk said:

Fewer people in absolute poverty is a good thing - yet the left seem to keep banging the 'relative wealth' drum. Why? Is the motivating factor here envy?

Ideology and politics. The understanding that the only thing to make people prefer your brand of economics rather than the other guy's is to find ways to make yours appeal more.

[arfursleep]

AstonZagato said:

On Seattle, I usually go a couple of times a year. The one thing that stands out are the number of beggars on the street. Each crossroads in the downtown CBD has four - one on each corner.

I did see one lady beggar holding a sign "Too honest to become a thief, too ugly to become a hooker"

I was in Chicago in April, it's no better. Nor San Francisco especially in the tourist areas

[Europa1]

BlackLabel said:

Jon Snow embraces his inner Corbynista at Glastonbury.

https://order-order.com/2017/06/27/theres-snow-thi...

Edited by BlackLabel on Tuesday 27th June 14:55

If hearing a newsreader shout something at a festival are what Daniel's dreams are made of, he badly needs to recalibrate his ambitions.

[Slagathore]

garyhun said:

Du1point8 said:

Think this needs bring back.

Such a depressing chart

I've seen it posted a few times recently and genuinely thought someone might have been cheeky and edited the question to a chart with those answers.

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/01/28/majority-supp...

Sadly not.

[Jockman]

Could that be interpreted as envy?

[AstonZagato]

arfursleep said:

AstonZagato said:

On Seattle, I usually go a couple of times a year. The one thing that stands out are the number of beggars on the street. Each crossroads in the downtown CBD has four - one on each corner.

I did see one lady beggar holding a sign "Too honest to become a thief, too ugly to become a hooker"

I was in Chicago in April, it's no better. Nor San Francisco especially in the tourist areas

I do Chicago, New York, San Fran (admittedly not for a few years), Miami, Orlando and a few other randoms like Richmond. Seattle (IMHO) was the standout worst for vagrants. Really shocking and noticeable. NY has more but they aren't quite so concentrated.

It's not down to minimum wage. Most seem to have health issues (often mental health).

[MrBrightSi]

BlackLabel said:

Jon Snow embraces his inner Corbynista at Glastonbury.

https://order-order.com/2017/06/27/theres-snow-thi...

Edited by BlackLabel on Tuesday 27th June 14:55

Cringed harder than i've ever cringed before.

[Goaty Bill 2]

Jockman said:

Could that be interpreted as envy?

I fear that to interpret it any other way would be seen by most as folly.
Aside from the 69% of Labour supporters that think it is somehow 'moral' to be "picking a man's pocket once a year".

I far prefer compassionate conservatism to outright theft myself.

[Carl_Manchester]

Mark Benson said:

Moonhawk said:

Fewer people in absolute poverty is a good thing - yet the left seem to keep banging the 'relative wealth' drum. Why? Is the motivating factor here envy?

Ideology and politics. The understanding that the only thing to make people prefer your brand of economics rather than the other guy's is to find ways to make yours appeal more.

Whilst I do agree with the general jist of Tuna's point above, the left are not the only group worried about rising wage inequality. There are a fair number of us on the right that are also worried about it, some for selfish grounds, some not.

Using poverty as a measure is helpful but it masks the true crisis of the middle and upper middle classes. As far as I am aware, nobody agreed that just being out of poverty was a 'success' for capitalism infact, if we are agreeing that simply being above the breadline is a 'success' we might as well all turn communist and be done with it.

No, the people of this country will never be happy with 'good enough' and it will take another almighty economic shock to shift the centre of gravity into getting the 42% of people that voted Tory re-aligned with a new reality that a shift in Reagan/Thatcher capitalism is happening whether they want it to or not.

Thankfully another economic shock is never too far away.

After Davos this year I feel that across the political spectrum there is a sense of agreement that liberal capitalism reached the end-point in 2008 and what we are currently left with is a zombie form of liberal capitalism i.e. the people are still dancing but the music has stopped. Once the shift to advanced forms of AI starts to bite, it will cement the decline of the middle and upper middle classes perhaps for at least the next generation.

What there is disagreement about is the remedy.

On one end of the spectrum we have the Trump/Bannon view (whether they get to implement their view is yet to be seen) and on the other end we have McDonnell/Corbyn, acting as the braying mob from the sidelines but unable to really affect anything as it stands.

I can see people are asking above whether this is a question of envy, I would say that for the middle and upper-middle classes that it is not about envy it will be about sheer survival of their quality of life.

Once the middle and upper middle classes realise they are experiencing a real and permanent dip in their quality of life (happening now and expected to accelerate in 2022), it will surely tilt the balance back into Labour's favour.

The question is whether Corbyn will be able to wait it out that that long (doubtful) or, whether the Tories will re-align themselves and cherry pick some of Marx' theory and re-label it so as not to appear Marx'. This has been done successfully by the Bank of England, the Fed, Draghi and Abe, I can't see why the Tories cannot achieve the same goals, with other Socialist policies and deliver a 'capitalism 3.0' fit for the next generations.

Corbyn has been very successful at rabble rousing in the last election, all he needs is a continual shift in middle class living standards for the balance to tip in his favour and there are plenty of scenarios that could result in that sooner than 2022.