New Political Party

[Carl Ne the Shoeman]

Lets start one. The old ones are too far opposed to do anything right. No one wants to listen to each other so why not have a political party that serves the best interests of all people?

For fun we can have a red, white, and blue Eagle as our symbol.

What do you guys say?

Me I've always wanted to see a party that A) Isn't ruled by one religion or another B)will pay attention to the enviroment C)Is not going to infringe on the second amendment.

Just a thought.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Me I've always wanted to see a party that A) Isn't ruled by one religion or another B)will pay attention to the enviroment C)Is not going to infringe on the second amendment.

Just a thought.

I LIKE it so far!

I would add:  D) does not infringe upon individual rights and liberties. (But please feel free to infringe on any MegaCorporation you choose...  )

[Sibling Chatty]

So far, the TTBO party would work for you guys.

I'd go for a red white and blue Toadfish, though. Eagles are so overdone...

(TTBO, Throw The Bastards Out. My Grandfather's party. And mine.)

[goat starer]

Is the second amendment the one about bearing arms? I will support that one when sombody recognises that the appropriate level of arms to carry (in a well regulated fashion) in the modern word so as to preserve the 'security of the free state' is a banana on a stick.

http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/002607.php

Sergeant: We haven't done them, have we? Right. Bananas! How to defend yourself against a man armed with a banana! Now you, come at me with this banana. (to Mr. Harrison) Catch! Now, it's quite simple to defend yourself against a man armed with a banana. First of all you force him to drop the banana; then, second, you eat the banana, thus disarming him. You have now rendered him 'elpless.

3rd Man: Suppose he's got a bunch?

Sergeant: Shut up.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Is the second amendment the one about bearing arms? I will support that one when sombody recognises that the appropriate level of arms to carry (in a well regulated fashion) in the modern word so as to preserve the 'security of the free state' is a banana on a stick.

http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/002607.php

Sergeant: We haven't done them, have we? Right. Bananas! How to defend yourself against a man armed with a banana! Now you, come at me with this banana. (to Mr. Harrison) Catch! Now, it's quite simple to defend yourself against a man armed with a banana. First of all you force him to drop the banana; then, second, you eat the banana, thus disarming him. You have now rendered him 'elpless.

3rd Man: Suppose he's got a bunch?

Sergeant: Shut up.

But what about a point-ed stick?

[goat starer]

Pointed stick?  Oh, oh, oh. We want to learn how to defend ourselves against pointed sticks, do we?  Getting all high and mighty, eh?  Fresh fruit not good enough for you eh?  Well I'll tell you something my lad. When you're walking home tonight and some great homicidal maniac comes after you with a bunch of loganberries, don't come crying to me!

*with apologies to cleese, idle, chapman, palin, jones and gilliam

[beagle]

I think we need two new parties in the UK, don't you Goat? One where Labour used to be and one where the Tories used to be; like the old days, before they all converged to balance precariously on the centre ground.

The modern world is all getting too confusing for my forty-something brain to cope with. Yesterday I was reading the Daily Telegraph Business Section when the "Trendline Russia" supplement fell out, printed on Pravda Street in Moscow. For one terrible moment I thought the revolution had come while I was out shopping, and the Telegraph had fallen without a fight. I do wish parties and countries would choose one ideology and stick with it for at least a century or two. It's very hard to keep up if they chop and change every few decades.

[Aggie]

I think we need two new parties in the UK, don't you Goat? One where Labour used to be and one where the Tories used to be; like the old days, before they all converged to balance precariously on the centre ground.

Oh, that's brilliant!  Start two allied parties, one on the left and one on the right... with enough overlap to actually get things done in the centre.

[Griffin NoName]

I think we need two new parties in the UK, don't you Goat? One where Labour used to be and one where the Tories used to be; like the old days, before they all converged to balance precariously on the centre ground.

Oh, that's brilliant!  Start two allied parties, one on the left and one on the right... with enough overlap to actually get things done in the centre.

Oh yeh and call it the Liberal or Social Democrat Party.

Then go for revoking the United Kingdom back into its consituent parts.

Everyone happy.

Ah, and maybe bring back the Corn Laws, Window Tax (much better than council tax) and the Poor House (at least the homeless would have somewhere to go). Yes, it's all taking shape in my mind.

You know what's wrong with the world? Progress. 

[Sibling Chatty]

Ya see, EVERYBODY needs a (victorious) TTBO Party.

Not to RUN things, just to keep a watch out and...TTBO!! I can tolerate politicians I disagree with, as long as they're not abusing the public trust, the public funds, selling their office to the highest bidder or peddling their influence like a hooker on a cocaine high. OH, and not point the 'finger of shame' at someone whilst being just as, if not MORE, shameful (Mark Foley??)

Accept a $75,000 loan from somebody and 10 years later give them a $3 million contract for something that should cost $1.6 million?? TTBO!!

Push through costly and useless legislation to build useless bridges and roads to benefit one or two wealthy people?? TTBO!

It's not what we can DO, it's who we can STOP.

Let the decent humans not shrink from political service because of the number of total kneebiter, foam-at-the-mouth, jerk bastards they'd have to work with--TTBO!!

And keep doing it. If the new guy screws up...he's a prime target, because he SHOULD have known better!! TTBO, You know it's a better choice!

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

I like it, Chatty!

I have been voting AGAINST for years and years -- it's way much easier than finding someone in the mess that I actually like ... 

[goat starer]

I am not sure what we need by way of parties. Since walking out of a government conference last week because I could no longer stand the people, lies etc, going to the Tate Modern instead and spending a day on the slides the only thing I am certain of is that we need more slides!

[beagle]

You know what's wrong with the world? Progress. 

A group of us was having a conversation along those lines the other day. Trying to work out whether  "Thatcher's Children" of "greedy entrepreneurs" were better or worse than "Blair's Children" of "Clockwork Orange thugs".  Interestingly it was the twenty-somethings who most reckoned that teenagers (and younger) were totally out of control now. Perhaps grumpy old manhood, like puberty, is starting earlier.

[goat starer]

I am not sure that the distinction between "Thatcher's Children" of "greedy entrepreneurs" and "Blair's Children" of "Clockwork Orange thugs" is accurate. The greedy entrepreneurs created an environment in which the poor have dropped further and further behind the rich and it is this 'gap' that has created a generation of young thugs. The gap in educational standards, income, health, crime etc can be quite clearly seen growing during the Thatcher era and whilst it continues under Blair all these children seem to me to be Thatchers progeny. (I would argue Blair is the (slightly prodigal) child of Thatcher!)

It was Thatcher who decided there was no working class, giving licence to her governemnent and all that have followed to marginalise the poorest areas of the country and create class apartheit in our cities and thatchers grasping entrepreneurialism that created an environment in which there are only two options, success and failure. It was thatchers idea to sell off council homes that their owners can no longer afford to maintain. We should not be suprised that the legacy of this is failure and thuggery!

From dimantling the assets of the nation to destroying any ability of the poor to use collective action to improve conditions Thatcher created a whole generation of lost adults and children the effects of which are only now being felt. You can blame Blair for not dismantling Thatcherite thinking altogether but I don't think he can be considered a cause.

[Swatopluk]

If with stable ideology it is meant that one knows what a party stands for even when not checking the news every 20 minutes, then I would agree. That does not mean vitrifying or fossilizing, just staying recognizable.

[goat starer]

I have always felt that political parties are detrimental to democracy. the party system in the UK introduces substantial wealth inequalities in terms of marketing, removes freedom of choice from elected representatives and effectively constrains an electorate to vote for a major party or waste their vote (this is also exacerbated by the electoral system of first past the post). Parties allow ideologies to become entrenched, stifle creative thought and end up promoting the interest of the party ahead of the electorate. At its extreme you get Soviet or Nazi style deferrence to the party at the expense of common sense.

If we are doing anything with parties I would say ban them and replace them with a system that strictly controls the expenditure of individuals on their promotion as a candidate.

[beagle]

Before Thatcher Britain was talked of quite seriously as likely to be the First world country most likely to join the Third world.  The bungling of the Wilson/Heath/Callaghan years quite simply did not work, and was a one way  trip to terminal decline, in which there wouldn't have been any wealth, the distribution of which about to argue. If there is a better model than the one Thatcher built and Blair inherited, it has yet to be tried here IMHO.

It was Thatcher (for whatever motives) who engineered probably the biggest transfer of land assets to the relatively poor, that this country has ever seen. I suspect if Hugo Chavez did the same the left would cheer him to the echo. If the argument is that the "feckless poor" can't be trusted to run their own affairs, and the state must always do it for them, then we are probably going to have to agree to differ.

As for educational standards, Labour has totally debased them. Every year the pass rate goes up, and we are told that it's because students and teachers are working harder than ever.  I suspect not even the Education Secretary really believes that. Combined with the lack of discipline in (some) state schools this is what is causing educational apartheid. Without trustworthy examination certificates employers (and universities) will fall back on their own tests, or "elite" schools which can be trusted to make children work and maintain discipline. Labour's reaction to that ? Telling universities they must accept less qualified candidates for social inclusion reasons.  So much easier than fixing the problem, or even leaving alone those grammar and maintained schools that once used to provide a route for the poorest and hardest working into top universities. 

Mrs Thatcher didn't ban collective action. She merely said that union leaders must win a secret ballot of members before calling one. This is a widely respected notion called "democracy".  She also said that if your argument is with a ball-bearing manufacturer you can't throw a picket-line around the local hospital instead, even if that would be more effective. Again, no arguments from me there.  It's globalization which has ultimately caused the death of the strike. Mrs. T didn't invent that, she merely forsaw the inevitable consequences earlier than others.

On the misbehaving youth front I suspect there is blame on both sides. Both market forces and social policy/equality encouraging both parents to be more absent than ever before (note carefully I'm not picking on any particular gender here).

On a lighter note, looks like even the poorest might be dollar millionaires by 2016, if they can master buy-to-let or E-bay.

(Cue property crash...)


edit: fixed spelling

[goat starer]

Im afraid beagle that I am going to fundamentaly disagree with you on this post.the House of Commons library document A Century of Change: Trends in UK statistics Shows this data very clearly. obviously there are things that were better and worse during this period (eg. days lost due to stoppages under thatcher was lower than the 1970's - but much higher than the 1960s) and we all pick our stats to suit our arguments but as a political economist I look at the data for the Thatcher era and it is the worst period of British economic performance since the depression of the 1930's.

The 1980s mark a point at which the UK went from general economic stability to a cycle of boom and bust. In recent years the shift towards a more keynsian economic theory has stabilised this situation but the UK now spends more (as a proportion of GDP) on supporting the apparatus of the state than it did when the state owned sector was significantly larger in the 50's and 60's. The genaral trend in the 20th century shows three spikes in government spending - WW1, WW2 and Thatcher. regressive taxation under thatcher meant that the total tax burden on the lowest paid workers was at an all time peak (this from the 'tax cutting' party) it has declined since but is still much higher than in the heyday of consensus poltics. The overall taxation burden went up across the board.

I have no idea where you got the idea that

Before Thatcher Britain was talked of quite seriously as likely to be the First world country most likely to join the Third world.

. this is not an idea that I am familiar with from my degree course and would be intrigued to see a reference. There is a lot of declinist literature about teh 70's but I have seen none that is this apocalyptic from serious economists or political historians. Many good economists have shown that overall trends show little significant decline during this period (eg. Alan Booth - The British Economy in the Twentieth Century).

The land asset transfer to the poor has been shown to be a completely fraudulant argument. In general council house sales left poor families effectively stranded in low value housing in poor areas unable to access the repairs that came with their lease previously. Annecdotally I can see this in my job which involves working on council Estated in Bradford. Where once you could identify the owner occupied housing by the stone cladding and new windows it is now identified clearly by the poor state of repair when compared to neighbouring housing association properties. The people who made money from right to buy were second home owners / private landlords and estate agents. report after report has shown that the arguments that the sale of council housing and nationalised industries benefitted anyone but the rich are simply wrong. there was a land asset transfer and it was from the state to the affluent! Some of the issues with right to buy can be found in this JRF report. There is a good reason why social housing existes and it is becuse the capitalist state requires a large number of low paid people to support the champagne glass of wealth distribution. (the bottom 416 million people in the world earn the same as the top earning 500 people according to the UN). As a relatively high earner currently unable to afford guttering repairs I have no idea how people on one third of my income are expected to!

On collective action the banning of secondary picketing effectively ended collective action. In the past if a group of workers were treated unfairly they would expect that other members of their union in RELATED occupations (ie. same supply chain) would also strike. These secondary strikes heap pressure on the capitalist owners and effectively force change. Globalisation is an argument for the need for secondary picketing as the effects of Unelected (undemocratic business) are now so far reaching that they cross industry and national boundaries. secret ballot was simply a mechanism to prevent action by small groups and to slow down the strike process to allow employers time to avaoid the worst impacts. There is nothing special about secret ballot unless you have unequal distribution of resources.

I like you rather suspect that qualifications are easier now than before but that was clearly a process that began pre 1997.

During the 1980s and 1990s inflation rates were pretty similar overall to those in the 50's 60's and 70's (there was unusually high inflation the latter part of teh 1970's and early 1980s and there can be no argument that the monetarist policy brought this under control, replacing it with boom and bust but this was nothin unusual taken on a 100 year cycle which is statistically relevant).

Real GDP per capita (adjusted for inflation) which during the 1960s and 1970's only once saw negative change. Saw three dips into negative during the period 1979-1997.

despite 20 changes to the way unemployment figures were measured (all of which reduced the number) the graph of unemployment shows it to be at its highest in the 1980s since the depression of the 1930's.

I will not go as the graphs I believe speak for themselves. the tory spin on their economic management has been masterful but ultimately it was nothing but spin. I would urge anyone undecided to look at the statistics in the report at the top of this post and decide for yourselves!

[beagle]

link=topic=323.msg8805#msg8805 date=1165241771]
I have no idea where you got the idea that

Before Thatcher Britain was talked of quite seriously as likely to be the First world country most likely to join the Third world.

. this is not an idea that I am familiar with from my degree course and would be intrigued to see a reference. There is a lot of declinist literature about teh 70's but I have seen none that is this apocalyptic from serious economists or political historians. Many good economists have shown that overall trends show little significant decline during this period (eg. Alan Booth - The British Economy in the Twentieth Century).

Where could have I have got that idea? Possibly it was during the Three day week when doing your homework by candlelight in a cold house got to be tedious. Perhaps it  was the winter of discontent when the unions even picketed hospitals, or possibly it goes further back, to Harold Wilson and the "pound in your pocket" devaluation (with a reference to fixing "boom and bust" in 1967, long before Thatcher).  Or perhaps it was the IMF bail-out of 1975/1976?

At thirty years distance it's hard to recall exactly who lined up behind up behind the third world statement, but as Guardian article describes, it caught the mood of the times. Not for nothing was Britain called "The Sick man of Europe".

The land asset transfer to the poor has been shown to be a completely fraudulant argument...

What is the alternative? That the poor pay rent to the state or buy-to-let owners indefinitely, without ever getting to become part of the property owning class themselves? Whether that's a left or a right wing policy it doesn't sound like a very good outcome to me.

Despite 20 changes to the way unemployment figures were measured (all of which reduced the number) the graph of unemployment shows it to be at its highest in the 1980s since the depression of the 1930's.

But when were the problems? In the period immediately after Thatcher took over and had to bring inflation crashing down, and in the period when she was talked into the ERM and shadowing the Deutschmark. The second I'll admit was a disastrous policy mistake, the first inevitable if she was to achieve more than the tradition of managed decline.

As for the unions. If they still had the power of say, the unions in France I suspect we would have the youth unemployment levels of France too. When it comes to selling off the state treasures, I'll let you drive an Allegro, or wait the 6 weeks it could take to get a phone line put in.

The real question to me is this. If Mrs Thatcher's policies were so bad, why have countries around the world copied them? Why has our per capita GDP gone from below our European competitors to above it? Why did Labour fail to repeal anything of substance?

[Swatopluk]

As an outsider I think that Thatcher was a necessary "Rosskur" (lit:horse treatment) for Britain but it turned into Reaganomics later, i.e. she got the ship from capsizing to the left to properly upright again but then tilted it over too far to the right (economically).

[goat starer]

Beagle. I respect your opinion. It is always interesting to find a Thatcher supporter as the world tilts crazily to the centre. I think there is some merit in Swatopluks post. The 3 day week and winter of discontent were indicative of a failure of the callahan government to grasp economics and a change was clearly necessary. Had it been a one term Thatcher government (ie, had the falklands war not occurred / been engineered - delete as applicable). We would have seen a foot labour govt and we will never know what would have happened then. I would still maintain however that the 70s events were not significant in terms of impact on the British economy when taking the long view and were no more serious that the Thatcher stock market crashes of the 80's.

On council housing I would always maintain that people in public sector housing have better standards of living than those on low incomes in privately owned housing. trhis is bourne out by fuel poverty stats. The housing market for low income housholds is not an attractive place to be - particularly in teh north of england. people have been put onto a property stepladder that allows no escape from the poorest estates (with their attendant barriers to escape of poor education, employment etc) as the value of ex council homes where there is excess housing stock (ie outside the south east, bristol and cornwall) is massively below the house price outside these estates.
issues identified here with this hopusing sector include....

• financial hardship when incomes are unstable
  difficulty with the finance companies working at the lower end of the market
  legal problems
  structural problems, because the houses are often inferior, and
  vulnerability to market fluctuations, particularly since the deregulation of the market in the late 1980s

the largest amongst these being that thatcher sold houses that would soon need £20,000 roof repairs to people on low incomes. It was an incredibly ireesponsible policy under these criteria and I will seriously invite you to visit me in Bradford and I will show you some examples of the effect on people and the environment on the poorest estates.

It is normal accross the rest of europe for renting to be a significant proportion of the housing market. Even under european right wing governments it was seen as not just normal but desirable. I have no sympathy for the view that people are better off owning a home they cannot afford to maintain on housing benefit than they are renting one where the repairs are done for them. Council house sales in the South East simply led to a vastly inflated private sector rental market and undersupply of social housing as poor families brought houses under right to buy.

[Sibling Chatty]

I am not sure that the distinction between "Thatcher's Children" of "greedy entrepreneurs" and "Blair's Children" of "Clockwork Orange thugs" is accurate. The greedy entrepreneurs created an environment in which the poor have dropped further and further behind the rich and it is this 'gap' that has created a generation of young thugs. The gap in educational standards, income, health, crime etc can be quite clearly seen growing during the Thatcher era and whilst it continues under Blair all these children seem to me to be Thatchers progeny. (I would argue Blair is the (slightly prodigal) child of Thatcher!)

It was Thatcher who decided there was no working class, giving licence to her governemnent and all that have followed to marginalise the poorest areas of the country and create class apartheit in our cities and thatchers grasping entrepreneurialism that created an environment in which there are only two options, success and failure. It was thatchers idea to sell off council homes that their owners can no longer afford to maintain. We should not be suprised that the legacy of this is failure and thuggery!

From dimantling the assets of the nation to destroying any ability of the poor to use collective action to improve conditions Thatcher created a whole generation of lost adults and children the effects of which are only now being felt. You can blame Blair for not dismantling Thatcherite thinking altogether but I don't think he can be considered a cause.

Substitute Reaganite and Bushtista in there, and remember that "centrist" Bill Clinton actually dismantled the system condemned as "perpetual welfare" by fore instead of by fixing anything, and you have the US. Under the old system, if you worked at it, you COULD (and many DID) work and educate your way out of the bottom ranks with a possible future, now you can get just enough help to be able to cling tenuously to the bottom levels of poor, rather than rank poverty. (Clinton and "two years and off" does not give a possibility of enough education to actually get a decent enough job to support a family, as most recipients will need remedial work before they can get to job education.)

Somehow, GREED works its nasty head into the whole equation. How much better is it to provide enough (food, shelter, security, education) for children so that they CAN expect a better future, rather than punish them for whatever failures we find in their parent or parents, who were probably also failed similarly...

No point in being a "centrist" if you have allowed the "center" to be dragged so far from the left (fixed it to say what I meat to say before I stopped to answer the phone) that the old Right Wing would be called socialists in only 3 generations.

[beagle]

I think you mean the center has been dragged to the right don't you Sibling Chatty? It certainly has here. In Tory Winston Churchill's time as Prime Minister there were even nationalised pubs.

I would still maintain however that the 70s events were not significant in terms of impact on the British economy when taking the long view and were no more serious that the Thatcher stock market crashes of the 80's.

It's what wouldn't have happened that is important IMHO. Without Big Bang the City would still be a parochial rich man's club, and never have become the global, cosmopolitan motor of the economy it has become. Just as Nixon could go to China, Thatcher could break up the City monopolies in a way that Labour would never have dared. If you check the press recently you'll find out how even that notorious right-winger Ken Livingstone thinks that is a legacy that we must not lose. It's too easy to paint Thatcher as a union basher, without recognising that she demolished cushy middle/upper class cliques too when opening up the economy.

On Swatopluk's point I think the jury is still out. How right wing/free market do you need to be to compete with China? How much social welfare can we maintain? we'd all like to have Swedish style social services, but are they sustainable? Does protectionism work? Is it justifiable anyway, or a covert form of racism? etc etc

[Sibling Chatty]

Whenever I hear the 'covert racism' thing, I think about a woman I knew in Houston.

"You can be as covertly racist as you wanna be on my black ass, just help me support a paralyzed man and three children until I can finish this damned degree."

Horrible "Welfare Queen" that she was...depending on other people to support her and her kids, you know, while she lazed around taking 17-20 hours a semester, caring for a T-3 down paralyzed person and trying to keep 3 kids clothed, fed and in school. OH, and worked on weekends 12 hours a day to afford the "extra" medical supplies that our great indigent healthcare system wouldn't pay for.

Yep, bleeding heart liberal, that's me.
========
The question needs to become "How far can we NOT go to preserve our own humanity?"

When we choose to throw a growing percentage of our 'surplus population' under the wheels of the moving economy, we don't need to act shocked when they grab at the ankles of the survivors as they go.

[goat starer]

she sounds thoroughly evil. it was probably Mrs Thatcher...



milk snatcher

oh my goodness I must send those games to as many people as possible!

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Whenever I hear the 'covert racism' thing, I think about a woman I knew in Houston.

"You can be as covertly racist as you wanna be on my black ass, just help me support a paralyzed man and three children until I can finish this damned degree."

Horrible "Welfare Queen" that she was...depending on other people to support her and her kids, you know, while she lazed around taking 17-20 hours a semester, caring for a T-3 down paralyzed person and trying to keep 3 kids clothed, fed and in school. OH, and worked on weekends 12 hours a day to afford the "extra" medical supplies that our great indigent healthcare system wouldn't pay for.

Yep, bleeding heart liberal, that's me.
========
The question needs to become "How far can we NOT go to preserve our own humanity?"

When we choose to throw a growing percentage of our 'surplus population' under the wheels of the moving economy, we don't need to act shocked when they grab at the ankles of the survivors as they go.

Let us not forget that along with dismantling of the safety net (welfare) there was also rampant slashing of college grant programs.  And college loan programs.

Factor in the rise of the cost of education in ALL universities.

And you get a formula that seems patently designed to keep poor people poor for each generation.

And, to reduce the number of middle-class (especially in the lower financial tiers) college graduates.

And to increase the number of graduates that come out so debt-ridden that they will be paying for it until their middle-to-late '30s.

Which translates nicely to a delay in home purchases.

Which translates to a surplus of housing in areas.

Which is what we have today. 

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

If it was, in fact, designed.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Which is worse? A deliberate attempt to social engineer things, or complete and utter indifference to the overall picture? (with a 'healthy' dose of incompetence blended in)

*bleah*

Sometimes, I'm glad I'm not 20 and facing college ...

[beagle]

I doubt housing oversupply in the U.S. is a designed policy. It has been borrowing against housing equity which has until recently kept the U.S. consumer going, the dollar artificially high, and the stock markets booming. I don't see how it would be in the right's interests to bring the economy crashing down (unless it's shorting by the evil hedge funds  ).
We'd have the same problem here (and might yet) if it weren't for shortages of building land, and high levels of East European guest workers.

It was Labour here who brought in tuition fees for college. Of course it wasn't sold as "Getting more money for the Treasury", but as "A regrettable consequence of broadening access to higher education".

I agree with Bob that economics seems amazingly laissez-faire these days. Forty years ago Harold Wilson was in big trouble when the pound fell 14%, but President Bush seems in the clear though the dollar has fallen 40.  Perhaps the track record of trying to intervene in the markets (e.g. Black/White Wednesday in the U.K.) has something to do with that.

[Sibling Chatty]

Current US economics are based on the Get All You Can principle, with the caveat that the "you" in question be the Bush Family and Friends, and the extant 'ruling and wealthy classes'. They just don't bother to even pretend to hide it anymore.

[Swatopluk]

A "weak" currency has its merits (as long as it is stable) provided that you are an exporting country. China is bashed regularly for binding itself to the weak dollar for the same reason.
The problem starts when  the old joke becomes true again: The Ruble is convertible to Pound and Dollar now: On pound of Rubles equal one Dollar (For today/to-moorow replace Dollar with Euro and Rubel with Dollar.

Thatcher's union bashing was as it seems necessary (I hear "I'm allright, Jack" was not actually an exaggeration) but it went beyond restoring the balance. I don't think she intended to make unions completely illegal though as do some prominent figures in the US.

Again, I am neither an economist nor an expert on British interior politics and can only opine on "impressions".

[goat starer]

Thatcher and the unions is an interesting question and your attitude to it will always depend on your attitude to whether unions enhance or detract from democracy / democratic decisionmaking. I have always considered that without collective action and bargaining and without the right to strike power is entirely vested in corporate interests and affluent individuals and the election system becomes window dressing for parties that will ultimately kow tow to the whims and caprice of business and the afluent classes. unionisation and the labour movement brought about major social change in child labour, pay and conditions, health and safety, working hours etc. It continues to do so driving HSE legislation. I rather suspect Thatcher would have banned the unions if this would not have meant civil war! I also rather suspect she would happily have had the children of working class families cleaning chimneys again (although I have no evidence other than my own eyes to support this).

Interesting article on Conservatioves and the Unions which argues that structual changes in the labour market would have ultimately forced change on the unions regardless of Conservative policy here

[beagle]

I'm not anti-union per se. In fact I was a member of two a couple of decades ago. It's the subversion of a whole union by a small minority intent on using it as an extremist political tool that I opposed. Did the union at British Leyland do its members any favours? Even allowing for the contribution from incompetent management. How many jobs did they destroy in the quest for a Marxist Utopia?

I suspect that change was inevitable eventually, but Britain could well have ended up with Zimbabwe levels of inflation and infrastructure damage first.

[Swatopluk]

The phenomenon I describe has not much do do with Marxism (they just didn't change the rhetorics for about a century) but with raw power for the leadership.
I think we all here would agree to a balance between labor and business interests (though we might not on the specific nature).
I even consider a certain degree of protectionism defensible, if it protects the society as a whole not just narrow interests (no sympathy for the French banana wars or the US steel tariffs though).

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

I totally agree, that historically, unions were a necessary balance to over-powerful corporations.

I also agree that, in the past, unions have greatly reduced the fatalities and other exploitation of workers by at best, indifferent "I Want! I Want! NOW!" corporate-mentality.

But, the old saying, "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely" is as true for Union Leaders as it is for the Heads of SuperMegaCorp, Inc.

Today, many unions are so bloated with union leadership that has lost touch with the REAL needs of it's workers, as to be a liability instead of an asset.

Note I said "many".

Moreover, on the flip-side, in spite of a great deal of corruption, over-the-top behavior and such, the mere existence of those unions serves as a brake on the runaway behavior of "I Want! I Want! NOW!" that is by law* the attitude of SuperMegaCorp, Inc.

I suppose, like ANY pile of Human Achievement, from time to time, we need to tear it down to the foundation, and rebuild?

I sometimes wonder....


____________________________________

* years ago, I read a story of a corporation that had made it it's moto to give away as much of it's profits as it could stand, and still be competitive. That is, the heads of this corporation had an altruistic spirit, and wanted to "give back" to it's community in many and varied ways-- far above what would have benefited them tax-wise.

This they proceeded to do.

The heads were immediately taken to court, by the stock-holders (the corporations investors).  These folk complained that they were not getting their "just due" returns on their stock, by the rampant giving away of profits (which was done before computing dividends? Apparently-- it's been years).

Anyway, the courts upheld the stock-holder's wishes in this matter:  stating that it was the DUTY of the corporation (and indirectly, it's board of directors) to make PROFIT FIRST, and altruism second.

I do not know any more details, but I have memory that most of the above is actually based on a true story.

In any case, it IS based on policy.

[goat starer]

I think we all here would agree to a balance between labor and business interests (though we might not on the specific nature).

I wouldn't. I would ban business for profit altogether (although I realise this is controversial)

[beagle]

I think we all here would agree to a balance between labor and business interests (though we might not on the specific nature).

I wouldn't. I would ban business for profit altogether (although I realise this is controversial)

Not to those of us who remember the first internet boom...

[Sibling Chatty]

First internet boom? Oh, yeah, all the miracle script kiddies in the US wanting to be allowed to not put their Social Security money into Social Security, but put it into their company stock. The stock that went from $93 a share to $0.19 a share in less that 72 hours?? I had a GREAT time after that blow-up, taunting them. Of course, most of them weren't around as much, what with moving back into Mom and Dad's and having to work an Starbucks and Chili's both to keep up their car payments--and that's after letting the condo go back to the mortgage company.

It was sad, but they didn't learn, for the most part. They STILL supported privatization, without looking at the set up, which was heavily in favor of the 'fund managers' and the government, and only guaranteed that they'd be able to risk ALL their old age funds instead of some of them. Some people don't learn.

(See also: Enron)

[beagle]

There's a great book (which you may well have seen) on this area:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_Popular_Delusions_and_the_Madness_of_Crowds

It's way out of copyright and free online.

I'm interested in how Goat's "not for profit" companies are going to work. How do they raise capital? Or is the idea to embark on projects suited to the size of a smallish barter based commune society?

[goat starer]

raising capital is only relevant in a society that is capitalist as capital is a capitalist concept. if every company operated not for profit and everyone was paid the same the total resources in the economy would not change just their distribution and the decision making processes would be devolved throughout society.

There are plenty of very successful social enterprises in Britain today - the largest being Welsh Water - that operate not for profit. Even within a capitalist society it is easy for not for profit organisations to operate as they do not have to hand over large chunks of generated revenue to shareholders and can thus reinvest in improving services.

One good example of a large company moving towards a proper democratic model is Semco in Brazil

[beagle]

Reading about Welsh Water it seems that a very large part of its activities are outsourced. It would be interesting to know why that is. It *might* be that is related to my question; that it offsets the cost and risk of big capital projects by pushing them onto the private sector, like Labour does with PFI. Of course there might be other explanations.

I don't particularly doubt that a minimal economy can be run on a not-for-profit basis, just that it is not an efficient mechanism for capital intensive or entrepreneurial projects. My understanding is that the ability to raise money on the stock exchange for new projects was one of the reasons England pulled ahead economically of the French and Dutch rivals.

Of course if the intention is to provide a constant sustainable green non-growing economy then this might not be an issue.

[goat starer]

I have seen more entrepreneurialism from people in deprived communities to improve their lot on a not for profit basis than in any other place and that is with spending the last 5 years working in with small businesses and enterprise programmes. peoples ability to produce change is not created by money. It is innate. Look at the great artists, inventors etc who died in penury. It is the system that hols nback entrepreneurialism by imposing a system of capital that ensures that for every winner there must be many losers.

[beagle]

I don't doubt that creativity is innate (though many artists and musicians found it convenient to attach themselves to a patron). But if we really felt the injection of capital couldn't have a big effect why would anyone give to Water Aid, The Princes Trust or other charities that give people a leg up? Whether not for profit or corporate, well directed use of capital can have a leveraging (oh my god, I'm Talking American  ) effect. Other systems might be able to achieve the same end, but none so far seems to have worked anywhere near as well in practice, let alone better, and none seems as self-organising or scalable.

I guess your last sentence comes back to Churchill's quote about the "unequal sharing of blessings" versus "the equal sharing of misery". My view is that the cake can grow for everyone (as seen in South Korea etc in recent decades).

(This is fun. Don't meet many Marxists in rural Cambridgeshire  ).

[Aggie]

I guess your last sentence comes back to Churchill's quote about the "unequal sharing of blessings" versus "the equal sharing of misery". My view is that the cake can grow for everyone (as seen in South Korea etc in recent decades).

S. Korea's a good example (althogh there's very little social security, no minimum wage, and jobs that pay well require an extensive post-secondary education just to qualify), but the sugar for the cake still has to come from somewhere.  I'm not sure if it's the case globally, but North America's become pretty familiar with the names Hyundai, Samsung, LG etc. in the last decade...  it'd be interesting to look at how American competitors have fared in that time period.

Korea still has kept a bottom-up entrepreneurial economy to a large degree, though, especially in terms of grocery markets, fashion/clothing, the service industries, and even medical and dental services.  If I ever require major dental work, I'll probably fly there to have the work done, and still save money compared to the bloated bill (which my dental insurance won't totally cover) I'd get here.

[goat starer]

But if we really felt the injection of capital couldn't have a big effect why would anyone give to Water Aid, The Princes Trust or other charities that give people a leg up?

I suppose I would say that in a capitalist society it takes capitalist behaviour to stimulate action. Capitalist projects need injections of capital. At each stage of human evolution a means of cooperation, creativity and construction has existed. A money based sysetem is only its current incarnation. Somehow the lack of capital investment did not stifle the development of money.... 

(This is fun. Don't meet many Marxists in rural Cambridgeshire  ).

you are all too busy quaffing port, fox hunting and beating the servants  to be honest you dont meet many anywhere! We will have to start our own somewhat bizarre right/left think tank and call it Extremia

[beagle]

Not many servants left to beat these days. Times are hard. Had to let the second pastry chef go this morning. Comes to something when you can't have a biscuit. *

Like the idea of the think tank.


---
* This comment (C) someonefamouswhosenameiveforgotten

[goat starer]

times are so hard up here we are having to make 1000 'hoodies' redundant and the bottom has dropped out of the 'daft spoiler' industry altogether. But we were happy though we are poor...

because we were poor. My old Dad used to say to me, "Money doesn't buy you happiness, son".

etc

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

because we were poor. My old Dad used to say to me, "Money doesn't buy you happiness, son".

etc

LOL! *tears in eyes* thank you for that trip down MPFC lane. 

_________________________________


Money may not buy any happiness,

But it will buy a lot of temporary friends .. 

[goat starer]

yes well nobody expects a trip down MPFC lane.......