The Politics Thread

[Worthy4England]

@Worthy4England

Like I said, it's all the Tories fault, always was. always will be......oh hang on! Aint we had a Labour administration for the last 11 years? Nope, it's got nowt to do with them though has it? It's those bloody Tories what did it! Still pathetic.

Ok, lets take this another way then. Labour have had plenty of time to change Financial administration structures that were determined by previous Governments. They didn't.

As none of this has occurred within Government control, without changing legislation, I suggest you go ask the Financial institutions and banking chums why they fecked up so badly? I suspect personal gain and profit motvie wouldn't feature very highly - because collectively they wouldn't be interested in such things.

Question - as a result of the current mess we're in, would you legislate or allow the current mainly unregulated situation to continue? If you would legislate, where does that leave your position on free market economics? and if you wouldn't why not?

Maybe you could contribute something that adds to the debate, instead of general name-calling against my side of the debate?

[Zulus Thousand of em]

Had Newsnight on as I was drifting off last night and almost thought I heard McCain almost mock universal healthcare with reference to Canada and England, I suppose he means Britain anyway.

A few weeks ago he was talking about his experience of foreign policy and said that he'd visited, amongst others, Checkoslovakia. He's obviously got access to a tardis.

or spellcheck?

And has it not occured to you that at the time of his visit it was Czechoslovakia?

Thanks for the spelling lesson. I believe he went to Czechoslovakia this year. So he must have access to a tardis.

@Worthy4England

Like I said, it's all the Tories fault, always was. always will be......oh hang on! Aint we had a Labour administration for the last 11 years? Nope, it's got nowt to do with them though has it? It's those bloody Tories what did it! Still pathetic.

Never mind InsaneApache. I'm pretty sure it's more difficult to spell "Czechoslovakia" correctly than "occurred".

[ratbert]

@Worthy4England

Like I said, it's all the Tories fault, always was. always will be......oh hang on! Aint we had a Labour administration for the last 11 years? Nope, it's got nowt to do with them though has it? It's those bloody Tories what did it! Still pathetic.

Ok, lets take this another way then. Labour have had plenty of time to change Financial administration structures that were determined by previous Governments. They didn't.

As none of this has occurred within Government control, without changing legislation, I suggest you go ask the Financial institutions and banking chums why they fecked up so badly? I suspect personal gain and profit motvie wouldn't feature very highly - because collectively they wouldn't be interested in such things.

Question - as a result of the current mess we're in, would you legislate or allow the current mainly unregulated situation to continue? If you would legislate, where does that leave your position on free market economics? and if you wouldn't why not?

Maybe you could contribute something that adds to the debate, instead of general name-calling against my side of the debate?

All parties are responsible for bringing this situation to the table. Thacherism/Reaganomics started it in the 1980s and subsequently 'the market must decide' has been chanted by right and centre left alike (New Labour especially) which is why Cameron's statement today on Brown being responsible for the mess (partly correct) needs to look back further (to when he was advising Norman Lamont, for instance).

There's a new game now, namely that the balance between state and free market has shifted back towards the state. The question is how long this arrangement is. Do we move back to free markets once the crisis is over, or does this mean governments always have to have a hand in controlling economies?

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

May I commend the leading article defending capitalism in today's Economist.

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displa ... d=12429544

"What's needed is not more government but better government."

"Over the past century and a half capitalism has proved its worth for billions of people. The parts of the world where it has flourished have prospered; the parts where it has shrivelled have suffered. Capitalism has always engendered crises, and always will. The world should use the latest one, devastating though it is, to learn how to manage it better."

[Lord Kangana]

What a load of self-serving nonsense.

Why didn't they just write "we'll never f*ckin learn, will we?"

See my sig for further notes on the issue.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

What a load of self-serving nonsense.

Why didn't they just write "we'll never f*ckin learn, will we?"

On the contrary - the article, if you read it in its entirety, stresses the importance of 'learning'.

[Lord Kangana]

No, he's advocating rearanging the deck chairs after the iceberg has holed us.

In fact, far from failing, the overall lowering of “barriers to intercourse” over the past 25 years has delivered wealth and freedom on a dramatic scale. Hundreds of millions of people have been dragged out of absolute poverty. Even allowing for the credit crunch, this decade may well see the fastest growth in global income per person in history. The free movement of non-financial goods and services should not be dragged into the argument—as they were, to disastrous effect, in the 1930s.

So he's a fan of boom and bust then, because the very "wealth and freedom" he talks of have intrinsically lead us into this mess.

[BWFC_Insane]

No, he's advocating rearanging the deck chairs after the iceberg has holed us.

In fact, far from failing, the overall lowering of “barriers to intercourse” over the past 25 years has delivered wealth and freedom on a dramatic scale. Hundreds of millions of people have been dragged out of absolute poverty. Even allowing for the credit crunch, this decade may well see the fastest growth in global income per person in history. The free movement of non-financial goods and services should not be dragged into the argument—as they were, to disastrous effect, in the 1930s.

So he's a fan of boom and bust then, because the very "wealth and freedom" he talks of have intrinsically lead us into this mess.

Doesn't that really mean a lot of people who previously were comfortable now have far more than they actually need?

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

So he's a fan of boom and bust then, because the very "wealth and freedom" he talks of have intrinsically lead us into this mess.

"Capitalism has always engendered crises, and always will."

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

So he's a fan of boom and bust then, because the very "wealth and freedom" he talks of have intrinsically lead us into this mess.

"Capitalism has always engendered crises, and always will."

I'm not sure whether that quote defeats or strengthens LK's point, friend.

Chiming in with BWFCi, hasn't the inequality of the distribution of wealth risen rapidly during these last few years? Good times for some, indeed.

[Athers]

Not by much though DSB. A few percent over the last few decades here in the UK I think. That's with everyone shifting up obviously.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Not by much though DSB. A few percent over the last few decades here in the UK I think. That's with everyone shifting up obviously.

Interesting. I suppose it depends how and where you cut it. First figures I found were an analysis of Government figures from that right-wing bugle The Guardian:

the wealth of the poorest 50% of the population shrank from 10% in 1986 towards the end of the Thatcher government's second term to 7% in 1996 and 5% in 2002.

Plenty here, indeed far too much to leaf through at work...

[Worthy4England]

Having a quick scan read of the article. It appears to advocate that intervention at this point was not only prudent, but necessary, which is a little at odds with some of the political point scoring (not that I wouldn't expect either side to take advantage of the same situation we're the roles reversed).

As Mummy quite correctly points out there's a level of learning to be done. The question is whether that learning will involve more state regulation - which in itself will inhibit the free market somewhat or whether it shouldn't.

Many of the proponents of an unregulated market are often the people who will benefit most from it being unregulated, whilst I acknowledge there's a general benefit for all in "growth", there are still a number of activities within it that should quite correctly be under discussion right now. The Fed highlighted possible issues with Credit Derivatives as early as Sep 2005.

It's ok reading "educated" articles from a theoretical standpoint, especially when they represent your particular ideological position. For me, I prefer the words of someone who's an active practitioner.

"It's sort of a little poetic justice, in that the people that brewed this toxic Kool-Aid found themselves drinking a lot of it in the end," he said.

Also from his 2002 Annual report

Warren Buffett famously described derivatives bought speculatively as "financial weapons of mass destruction." In Berkshire Hathaway's annual report to shareholders in 2002, he said, "Unless derivatives contracts are collateralized or guaranteed, their ultimate value also depends on the creditworthiness of the counterparties to them. In the meantime, though, before a contract is settled, the counterparties record profits and losses--often huge in amount--in their current earnings statements without so much as a penny changing hands. The range of derivatives contracts is limited only by the imagination of man (or sometimes, so it seems, madmen)."

I think there needs to be some regulation, the trick will be just enough to allow the markets to continue performing...

[Athers]

Not by much though DSB. A few percent over the last few decades here in the UK I think. That's with everyone shifting up obviously.

Interesting. I suppose it depends how and where you cut it. First figures I found were an analysis of Government figures from that right-wing bugle The Guardian:

the wealth of the poorest 50% of the population shrank from 10% in 1986 towards the end of the Thatcher government's second term to 7% in 1996 and 5% in 2002.

Plenty here, indeed far too much to leaf through at work...

hmm, I just went for the Gini coefficient from http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=332 which looks like this

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

So he's a fan of boom and bust then, because the very "wealth and freedom" he talks of have intrinsically lead us into this mess.

"Capitalism has always engendered crises, and always will."

I'm not sure whether that quote defeats or strengthens LK's point, friend.

It confirms that LK is right - that the learned author accepts that some element of boom and bust is inevitable a capitalist system.

Those of us who advocate capitalism don't mind this much in view of the long-term trend.

So he's a fan of boom and bust then, because the very "wealth and freedom" he talks of have intrinsically lead us into this mess.

"Capitalism has always engendered crises, and always will."

I'm not sure whether that quote defeats or strengthens LK's point, friend.

Chiming in with BWFCi, hasn't the inequality of the distribution of wealth risen rapidly during these last few years? Good times for some, indeed.

It's important that poorest get better off in absolute terms - who cares if this is achieved in a system that promotes more income inequality?

If everyone gets better off, it's good times for everyone, even if those at the top get better off by more.

[BWFC_Insane]

So he's a fan of boom and bust then, because the very "wealth and freedom" he talks of have intrinsically lead us into this mess.

"Capitalism has always engendered crises, and always will."

I'm not sure whether that quote defeats or strengthens LK's point, friend.

It confirms that LK is right - that the learned author accepts that some element of boom and bust is inevitable a capitalist system.

Those of us who advocate capitalism don't mind this much in view of the long-term trend.

So he's a fan of boom and bust then, because the very "wealth and freedom" he talks of have intrinsically lead us into this mess.

"Capitalism has always engendered crises, and always will."

I'm not sure whether that quote defeats or strengthens LK's point, friend.

Chiming in with BWFCi, hasn't the inequality of the distribution of wealth risen rapidly during these last few years? Good times for some, indeed.

It's important that poorest get better off in absolute terms - who cares if this is achieved in a system that promotes more income inequality?

If everyone gets better off, it's good times for everyone, even if those at the top get better off by more.

See I disagree. Its the gap that matters. Otherwise we're all buying things with monopoly money.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

See I disagree. Its the gap that matters. Otherwise we're all buying things with monopoly money.

The 'absolute terms' that I refer to is a measure of what standard of living people can afford.

For me, the gap is pretty unimportant compared to a consideration of what the people at the bottom have in absolute terms.

Obsession with relative wealth/income etc. seems to me to be class jealousy most of the time.

[BWFC_Insane]

See I disagree. Its the gap that matters. Otherwise we're all buying things with monopoly money.

The 'absolute terms' that I refer to is a measure of what standard of living people can afford.

For me, the gap is pretty unimportant compared to a consideration of what the people at the bottom have in absolute terms.

Obsession with relative wealth/income etc. seems to me to be class jealousy most of the time.

But then the question is what do you define as a "standard of living" surely you can only take the current average and how far away the poorest members of the population are from that average.

Otherwise any other comparison is meaningless.

"Look i know your family of 5 is in a one bed flat with no heating and dripping walls but just think you're better off in absolute terms than your cave dwelling predecessors".

[ratbert]

Agreed that what people at the bottom have is important, but equally important is how they get access to it. Assuming wealth will cascade down ('trickledown economics') is more a 'fingers crossed' approach which is why government has to put mechanisms in place to ensure a degree of fairness in the system.

It's in human nature that the section of society that thinks it deserves a better deal looks towards at the section that has it all for a lift. It's whether taxing the upper tier (for want of a better term) is the way we tackle social inequality or government marks pathways for people to get the kind of income that ensures economic mobility.

[Worthy4England]

See I disagree. Its the gap that matters. Otherwise we're all buying things with monopoly money.

The 'absolute terms' that I refer to is a measure of what standard of living people can afford.

For me, the gap is pretty unimportant compared to a consideration of what the people at the bottom have in absolute terms.

Obsession with relative wealth/income etc. seems to me to be class jealousy most of the time.

That's a fairly simplistic view Mummy. I'm not sure of the linkage between earnings and class anyhow? At what level of earnings do you become "middle class" and at what level of earning do you become "upper class"?