The Politics Thread

[a1]

Anhoo, anyone else seen how all the car giants have gone cap-in-hand to the various governments of the world this week? Including the side-splitting story of the Indian firm (Tata) that owns Jaguar/Land Rover appraoching the UK Government for a subsidy?

So that'd be the foreign investors who took over a British company, that the government wouldn't protect because it was against free-market principals, asking to be subsidised. If Ben Elton offered that as a script he'd be laughed out of town. Thank god for market forces.

i was under the impression that "national debt" is money borrowed from foriegners/oilcompanies/richarabtypes/banks/thechinese

it's (indian company going cap in hand to some state) not that different than that (state borrowing money from [possibly foriegn] rich types) .

[Prufrock]

Because for years my "type" (ffs, a human being maybe?) have constantly been told how wonderful capitalism is and how it proved that socialism, or to be more precise the managed economy (with rules of behaviour and other such superfluous notions) was dead. Which is being shown to be utter piffle. Under the circumstances, what would you like me to do, lament that an inherently flawed system is showing its inherent flaws?

Quite, it's not so much 'delight' or 'glee' that the world has gone wrong and people are losing everything. More that after being constantly told socialism is wrong and that it doesn't work, it is a relief to see that this 'wonderful system' also doesnt work and now we can try to search for something a little more responsible.

Say for instance you are a Tory voter, which you may or may not be, but you saw Gordon Brown crash and burn. Now people are going to suffer when politicians make mistakes, so obviously you wouldnt be 'delighted' but politically you would be happy that your party, and your way of thinking looked more likely to get in.

Realistically, whilst i would love to jump aboard the Marxist train and plant a red flag on Downing street and actually have a go at doing it properly, i realise that is obviously not going to happen. Hopefully this banking mess will however force us to learn that there needs to be more responsible thinking, more accountability, and hopefully the ludicrously oxymoronic idea of self-regulation will dissapear.

[Worthy4England]

Anhoo, anyone else seen how all the car giants have gone cap-in-hand to the various governments of the world this week? Including the side-splitting story of the Indian firm (Tata) that owns Jaguar/Land Rover appraoching the UK Government for a subsidy?

So that'd be the foreign investors who took over a British company, that the government wouldn't protect because it was against free-market principals, asking to be subsidised. If Ben Elton offered that as a script he'd be laughed out of town. Thank god for market forces.

i was under the impression that "national debt" is money borrowed from foriegners/oilcompanies/richarabtypes/banks/thechinese

it's (indian company going cap in hand to some state) not that different than that (state borrowing money from [possibly foriegn] rich types) .

I suspect Mr A1, that the broad point being made is that some "investors" - and it probably could be any investors - that generally have spent the last 30 years proclaiming that Governments shouldn't interfere in market economics, do now appear to be cap in hand asking Governments to "interfere"...It's actually quite laughable, mind you should they pull off this particular coup, they'll probably still go to great lengths to point out that the market regulates itself and doesn't need any form of oversight from Governments, thank you very much....

We'll take all the profits when it's going well and won't save any of it for a rainy day when it all goes tits up, because the only thing we're actually investing in - is ourselves....

[a1]

I suspect Mr A1, that the broad point being made is that some "investors" - and it probably could be any investors - that generally have spent the last 30 years proclaiming that Governments shouldn't interfere in market economics, do now appear to be cap in hand asking Governments to "interfere"...It's actually quite laughable, mind you should they pull off this particular coup, they'll probably still go to great lengths to point out that the market regulates itself and doesn't need any form of oversight from Governments, thank you very much....

We'll take all the profits when it's going well and won't save any of it for a rainy day when it all goes tits up, because the only thing we're actually investing in - is ourselves....

yeah. i 'kinda' get it. i'm just saying the opposite is just as ironic.

imagine if 'they' couldnt get "national debt' ? things would be even more effed up than they are now.

unfortunatly(?) it looks to me like propping up these places, is the 'best' thng to do otherwise there'll be shit loads more folk on the dole, and you might not be able to get "national debt" monies off anybody in the future when you need it, then it might really be effed up.

if the whole thing collapses , everyone will be knackered. might turn into lord of the flies type shit.

not that these bigwigs should be swimmin' in champagne after they've had their arses saved. thats just takin' the piss.

[Montreal Wanderer]

I may be a bit naive here, but I'm not sure why socialism appears to be considered the opposite of capitalism. To me socialism does not imply total state control, or communism. Many of the western European countries and Canada are what I would describe as social democracies, where capitalist and socialist approaches co-exist relatively peacefully. We have market-driven economies, but we also have social welfare programs (free education, health care, unemployment insurance, etc. etc.). It is also hard for me to see why anyone, other than groups like Al Qaida, would be pleased by the financial meltdown - you may as well cheer the Great Depression.

[Worthy4England]

I may be a bit naive here, but I'm not sure why socialism appears to be considered the opposite of capitalism. To me socialism does not imply total state control, or communism. Many of the western European countries and Canada are what I would describe as social democracies, where capitalist and socialist approaches co-exist relatively peacefully. We have market-driven economies, but we also have social welfare programs (free education, health care, unemployment insurance, etc. etc.). It is also hard for me to see why anyone, other than groups like Al Qaida, would be pleased by the financial meltdown - you may as well cheer the Great Depression.

Well said that man

[Prufrock]

I may be a bit naive here, but I'm not sure why socialism appears to be considered the opposite of capitalism. To me socialism does not imply total state control, or communism. Many of the western European countries and Canada are what I would describe as social democracies, where capitalist and socialist approaches co-exist relatively peacefully. We have market-driven economies, but we also have social welfare programs (free education, health care, unemployment insurance, etc. etc.). It is also hard for me to see why anyone, other than groups like Al Qaida, would be pleased by the financial meltdown - you may as well cheer the Great Depression.

Meh I think part of it is the tendency to lump Socialism and Communism together under a big red flag and have a cold war II. I think most of the more socialist minded people on here, instead of calling for revolution and the driving away of the capitalist infidels, would prefer for the free market system to be reigned in and have more responsible government. Measures forcing companies to save for a rainy day. Worthy sums up my feeling by calling it 'laughable' that these companies who were all for the free market, self regulation, no government intervention, are now calling for government intervention. Its ludicrous.

In terms of Canadian and West European socialism that for me would be the aim.

[Lord Kangana]

Theres no need to post Prufrocks idea twice, as he's spoken for me on this one.

[Montreal Wanderer]

I may be a bit naive here, but I'm not sure why socialism appears to be considered the opposite of capitalism. To me socialism does not imply total state control, or communism. Many of the western European countries and Canada are what I would describe as social democracies, where capitalist and socialist approaches co-exist relatively peacefully. We have market-driven economies, but we also have social welfare programs (free education, health care, unemployment insurance, etc. etc.). It is also hard for me to see why anyone, other than groups like Al Qaida, would be pleased by the financial meltdown - you may as well cheer the Great Depression.

Meh I think part of it is the tendency to lump Socialism and Communism together under a big red flag and have a cold war II. I think most of the more socialist minded people on here, instead of calling for revolution and the driving away of the capitalist infidels, would prefer for the free market system to be reigned in and have more responsible government. Measures forcing companies to save for a rainy day. Worthy sums up my feeling by calling it 'laughable' that these companies who were all for the free market, self regulation, no government intervention, are now calling for government intervention. Its ludicrous.

In terms of Canadian and West European socialism that for me would be the aim.

Yes, but capitalism allows for regulation within a free market economy (many sectors in Canada are regulated) - so, like me, you are basically both a socialist and a capitalist, although we may differ (or not) on the amount of regulation required). They are not opposites.

[Prufrock]

I may be a bit naive here, but I'm not sure why socialism appears to be considered the opposite of capitalism. To me socialism does not imply total state control, or communism. Many of the western European countries and Canada are what I would describe as social democracies, where capitalist and socialist approaches co-exist relatively peacefully. We have market-driven economies, but we also have social welfare programs (free education, health care, unemployment insurance, etc. etc.). It is also hard for me to see why anyone, other than groups like Al Qaida, would be pleased by the financial meltdown - you may as well cheer the Great Depression.

Meh I think part of it is the tendency to lump Socialism and Communism together under a big red flag and have a cold war II. I think most of the more socialist minded people on here, instead of calling for revolution and the driving away of the capitalist infidels, would prefer for the free market system to be reigned in and have more responsible government. Measures forcing companies to save for a rainy day. Worthy sums up my feeling by calling it 'laughable' that these companies who were all for the free market, self regulation, no government intervention, are now calling for government intervention. Its ludicrous.

In terms of Canadian and West European socialism that for me would be the aim.

Yes, but capitalism allows for regulation within a free market economy (many sectors in Canada are regulated) - so, like me, you are basically both a socialist and a capitalist, although we may differ (or not) on the amount of regulation required). They are not opposites.

I wouldnt describe myself as a capitalist. Not ideologically. But ideology is irrelevant, reality is what matters, and capitalism isnt going anywhere. I agree that socialism and capitalism aren't opposites. That doesnt actually make me a capitalist, it just means i accept they can be apllied to each other.

The thing I am very much against is an unregulated free market. The things that matter to me are that public services are good. Public transport is good, and that the money is there for adequate public spending. Money in itself doesnt guarantee results, but you cant do it without money. I am for taxing big business, for the windfall tax. Therefore I am for making sure business is sufficiently self regulated that it doesnt need to come to the government taking money that could, and in my view, should be used on the people. All of this is within a capitalist framework that isnt going anywhere, and businesses have shown they arent up to regulating themselves. It is clear that capitalism works in cycles, with peaks and troughs, and it is also clear that businesses cant be trusted to put aside enough when its good, to help with a rainy day.

[Lord Kangana]

Or: a country should be run for the benefit of its citizens, not the profits of business nor the dividends of their shareholders, perhaps?

[Prufrock]

Or: a country should be run for the benefit of its citizens, not the profits of business nor the dividends of their shareholders, perhaps?

In a sentence yes. Though expanding it the bloody world should be.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

More that after being constantly told socialism is wrong and that it doesn't work, it is a relief to see that this 'wonderful system' also doesnt work

Hmmmm.... really, it's a 'relief'?

In terms of Canadian and West European socialism that for me would be the aim.

Or, rather, what you would settle for. (Just out of interest, what is it exactly that Canada and other Western European countries have that we don't that you think we have and that would, apparently, satisfy your want for change, were we to have them?)

i would love to jump aboard the Marxist train and plant a red flag on Downing street and actually have a go at doing it properly

[Montreal Wanderer]

Yes, but capitalism allows for regulation within a free market economy (many sectors in Canada are regulated) - so, like me, you are basically both a socialist and a capitalist, although we may differ (or not) on the amount of regulation required). They are not opposites.

I wouldnt describe myself as a capitalist. Not ideologically. But ideology is irrelevant, reality is what matters, and capitalism isnt going anywhere. I agree that socialism and capitalism aren't opposites. That doesnt actually make me a capitalist, it just means i accept they can be apllied to each other.

The thing I am very much against is an unregulated free market. The things that matter to me are that public services are good. Public transport is good, and that the money is there for adequate public spending. Money in itself doesnt guarantee results, but you cant do it without money. I am for taxing big business, for the windfall tax. Therefore I am for making sure business is sufficiently self regulated that it doesnt need to come to the government taking money that could, and in my view, should be used on the people. All of this is within a capitalist framework that isnt going anywhere, and businesses have shown they arent up to regulating themselves. It is clear that capitalism works in cycles, with peaks and troughs, and it is also clear that businesses cant be trusted to put aside enough when its good, to help with a rainy day.

Canada is a fairly capitalist country - crawling with capitalists, though not to the extent of our great neighbours to the south. Yet, there is a huge amount of regulation too - for all forms of public transport, for television, for telephones, in many other areas and, especially, for the treatment of people. Unions are strong but not stupid - what is good for the economy is good for them, and they know it. Human rights are protected (over-protected some might say) and there are many guarantees against wrongful dismissal, etc. Yet, in the final analysis, we know that industry and business have to make a profit for us all to survive. Big business has to know that people like me, in the education sector, are also important to development and growth. The government balances these things to the extent that seems in the public interest. We have to compete with countries that have large labour forces paid a fraction of what we are paid. So we we have to build better mousetraps, to put money into research and development, to be leaders in the higher tech fields because we can't compete in making furniture and clothes. It's a tricky balance to strike, and we've been in trouble for the last couple of months - but we've done pretty well on the long haul. IMHO keeping the social democracies going in a socailist/capitalist way is the best of all worlds (compared to what else is out there). So I cannot rejoice if either our form of socialism or capitalism gets into some trouble.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Because for years my "type" (ffs, a human being maybe?) have constantly been told how wonderful capitalism is and how it proved that socialism, or to be more precise the managed economy (with rules of behaviour and other such superfluous notions) was dead. Which is being shown to be utter piffle. Under the circumstances, what would you like me to do, lament that an inherently flawed system is showing its inherent flaws?

I don't know you, but I believe you are an ideologue who is getting some pleasure out of being 'proved right'.

We don't need a managed economy, we just need to learn the lessons from what has gone wrong. It's not the entire concept of markets that has been discredited - but it is clear that it is in everyone's interests that the financial system is modified.

But the economy will always be a cyclical thing... it's just the way things are and always be. Obviously this is a blip, but the long term trend will continue to be one of increased prosperity. So governments pick up the pieces when things go wrong - good, that's what they're for - to mitigate unacceptably harsh realities. Does this mean we should have a complete rethink and conclude that the economists are wrong about the long term benefits of markets?

Going back to the original example... it is absolutely right that the Government did not get involved in 'protecting' Land Rover/Jaguar (apart from the fact that it would have been a breach of EU Treaty obligations). The presumption must always be against propping up businesses that can't survive in their own right, because to do so is always inefficient.

[Prufrock]

it is a relief to see that this 'wonderful system' also doesnt work

Hmmmm.

In terms of Canadian and West European socialism that for me would be the aim.

Or, rather, what you would settle for.

i would love to jump aboard the Marxist train and plant a red flag on Downing street and actually have a go at doing it properly

Well i would, i wont deny that. Not gonna happen though is it? Realistically to call for that would waste an oppurtunity to re-introduce a conscience into the world. I know you are all for the free markets, and all for out and out ruthless capitalism, tis fair enough and i wont try to dissuade you, but i happen to disagree.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

You beat me to an edit that involves the adding of a question I'd be interested in hearing the answer to.

[Lord Kangana]

I've used it before, its still pertinent;

Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone

Said by one of the greatest minds this country ever produced. There are charlatans and pretenders not fit to lace the mans boots who still claim him to be discredited. Allow me to use a colloquialism; horseshit. An unregulated marketplace is the playground of the most vile sections of our society, it never has been, isn't, nor ever will be the way to progress the human race together, if indeed in a moral vacuum you would understand such a concept.

As for an ideologue, perhaps having principles alarms you, but just about my favourite ever quote is this one:

It is a little embarassing that, after forty five years of research and study, the best advice I can give to people is to be a little kinder to each other

The accrual of wealth by a tiny percentage of our society (and governmental complicity in the act) is nothing short of the greatest scandal this world has ever known. Give that whatever epithet you wish, its still what it is, both utterly ridiculous and unjust. And giving these people taxpayer subsidies after such runaway greed is a comic tragedy that Horace and his ilk would have found too preposterous to contemplate writing.

[Prufrock]

More that after being constantly told socialism is wrong and that it doesn't work, it is a relief to see that this 'wonderful system' also doesnt work

Hmmmm.... really, it's a 'relief'?

In terms of Canadian and West European socialism that for me would be the aim.

Or, rather, what you would settle for. (Just out of interest, what is it exactly that Canada and other Western European countries have that we don't that you think we have and that would, apparently, satisfy your want for change, were we to have them?)

i would love to jump aboard the Marxist train and plant a red flag on Downing street and actually have a go at doing it properly

Then i shall try to answer.

'relief' hmmm perhaps not the best choice of word. I am not happy that thousands of people are in big trouble, but it was always going to happen, i just hope we learn from it.

As for your second question, Monty talked about a blend of socialism and capitalism which is why i put Canada in, i don't actually know ANYTHING about Canada apart from what we hear from Mr Monty. As for Europe, France is well known for having socialist ideals. The trains here work. The hospitals are the best in the world. The school system works. We all live in a capitalist world, yet whilst we have a nominally socialist government (in terms of history), and France has a nominally centre right government, tis us who sold the fututre to the highest bid. We as a country rely so so heavily on finance, it is our only 'export', and we let it go with free reign. For all the Labour talk of booming economy what has been the actual gain to the man on the street? Our hospitals are poor, our school system failing, our public transport system light years behind anything in developed Europe. Spain and Portugal are supposedly way behind us economically, yet they can build a train to get from Lisbon to Madrid in just over two hours. And theirs will actually work.

The fact is we live in a capitalist, market driven world. That is globalisation and no matter how much i would like to see the ideas of 'from each..to each...' actually given a go, it can't happen in the modern world. What i would like is some responsibilty from the City. The point of a government is to help its people, and yes in the world we live a good economy is essential, but it must be used to benefit the people or what's the point? I know chucking money at public services doesnt guarantee results, but, working in a capitalist environment, the incentives should be there to attract the best minds to the important jobs such as public service initiatives. Big business enjoyed the glory years without benefitting the people enough, now it wants government help to bail it out.

The fact is the government HAD to help out the banks, if Northern Rock, or more importantly HBOS had gone under, the effects would have been catastrophic. You said markets work in cycles, everybody knows this, everybody, so where in the times of multibillion pound profits was the cash set away for such a situation?

On a completely different note, what are people's views on things such as Trident, and the two aircraft carrier ships that are being built, at £20bn per initiative?

[Lord Kangana]

More weapons to protect a democracy? Ask yourself, why, if we have such a utopia, do we feel the need to spread it with such terrible means?