Me? I needed some sleep.
Those like McBoo that are wedded to the capitalist model fail to grasp that just because a state is called socialist it does not mean it is socialist. To call China and India (ex) socialist / communist states is simply wrong. They never have been such. China was totalitarian and India an odd mish mash of stuff.
Me I'm disgusted that the average compensation of a FTSE100 director went up by 49% last year. What on earth for? Have they no idea what is going in the economy? I'm an economic liberal but that kind of thing makes me want to reach for a pitchfork. That doesnt mean the whole system is wrong though,
Errmmm - it clearly does
How many of these evil FTSE100 companies are homes to public pension schemes? I assume they invest their money somewhere.
I'm with uncle Jezza on this one. Lets put aside the whole equality arguament
The main problem is that there is no longer the remotest link between a companies performance, and the subsequent rewards for the people at the top.
The disconnect is total!
I can do this all day
The word socialist was added to the Preamble of the Indian Constitution by the 42nd amendment act of 1976, during the Emergency. It implies social and economic equality. Social equality in this context means the absence of discrimination on the grounds only of caste, colour, creed, sex, religion, or language. Under social equality, everyone has equal status and opportunities. Economic equality in this context means that the government will endeavour to make the distribution of wealth more equal and provide a decent standard of living for all.[citation needed]...Following independence, the Indian government officially adopted a policy of non-alignment, although it had an affinity with the USSR. The party's commitment to socialism has waned in recent years, particularly following the assassination of Indira Gandhi and her son Rajiv Gandhi. Elected in 1991, the government of Narasimha Rao introduced economic liberalisation with the support of finance minister Manmohan Singh, the current prime minister of India.
WHat - find dubious quotes that label something as something it is not?
USSR claimed to be socialist but never was, same as China.
You can keep a cat in a kennel and call it rover but it remains a cat.
Surely given the fact that we're talking about pay for the directors of the companies that are in the FTSE 100, the argument that there is a disconnect between their performance and reward is pretty fragile.
If their performance wasn't good, they wouldn't still be in the FTSE 100, would they 
As a matter of interest, its also worth noting that while the average may have been 49% - the median payrise for the FTSE 100 (yep, the top hundred companies) was 16%
So, half the people who run the top 100 companies got less than sixteen percent - A nice payrise admittedly, but, well, you must be doing something right to keep your company in the top hundred, mustn't you
mcboo - Member
We live in an amazing time.....literally hundreds of millions of people in India and China are being lifted out of absolute poverty in a process that has been going on for 20 years and continues to accelerate.
a wide range of anti-poverty policies have been introduced since the 1950s, which nonetheless started to prove effective only 20 years later. If the decline in poverty went from 60% to 35% between the 70s and the early 90s, globalization and liberalization policies made this trend go backward throughout the 90s.
USSR claimed to be socialist but never was, same as China.You can keep a cat in a kennel and call it rover but it remains a cat.
Well, you keep claiming the UK is a capitalist country TJ - but you and I both know that deep down its not, is it? If it was, you wouldnt be working for the NHS, would you
Zulu-Eleven - MemberSurely given the fact that we're talking about pay for the directors of the companies that are in the FTSE 100, the argument that there is a disconnect between their performance and reward is pretty fragile.
If their performance wasn't good, they wouldn't be in the FTSE 100, would they
That'll come as a relief to Lloyds Group and RBOS I'm sure.
wow
ok yeah can we hold up just for a min
and agree that however we look at it theres gonna be problems for us all no matter what the reasons are... welfare state dismantled, price of living going nuts, unemployment through the roof, massive black economy...
(this is the situation in europe right now... i live in france and all these issues are on the mainstream news every day)
so my question is:
what the **** can we do on an individual level about it??
and before the inevitable
'we cant do anything, hands tied, gotta pay the mortgage... the kids the pensions etcetc...
if not now then when?? when its too late? cause in much of europe... the 'siesta' economies in particular, its happening now dammit and the uk will not be far behind IMHO.
for my bit ive:
1. just sold my van (price of fuel up a few cents every week for the last 6 months) and am not buying another vehicle
2. veg garden now twice the size with a new polytunnel... food costs are going up in a similar way to fuel price here in france.
3. bought our house outright (this isnt quite so obvious now but... negative equity plus the instability of french banks could lead us into trouble i feel)
4. invested in a bunch of bike consumables (its our main form of transport and i can future proof it to some degree and do the work myself)
5. bought a wood fired range to get us off the gas (sh!t the price of gas at our last refil ?!@?£!)
so thats a start, i ve gone for the ones which have an immediate economic benefit, are sustainable and i think improve our quality of life...at any rate they stop me worrying all the time about whether we can continue to afford the next quarters bills.
so folks give me some solutions please, we all need em i reckon...
teamhurtmore - MemberErnie, you are finally getting it. As you said, the economists who screwed up....and economist are .....people.....finally a eureka moment has arrived.
Your inability to pay attention is worrying hurty, I hope you are more diligent in your paid work.
It is you who makes a distinction between capitalism and capitalists, not me. According to you : "history will tell us that we have seen a failure of capitalists rather than capitalism". So let me repeat once again what I have previously told you :
ernie_lynch - MemberThe fact remains you claim that there was nothing wrong with the economic model in place in 2008 (whatever you like to call it) and it was only the people who were at fault. Firstly almost no one agrees with you hence the propping up of failed institutions, introduction of quantitative easing, etc, all of which was in direct contradiction to the existing protocols. And secondly 'the market' is a wholly man-made entity, if the people who operated within it were wrong, then so was the system. You can't distinguish the two.
As I said, blaming the capitalist and not capitalism is a cop out and an obvious attempt to remain in denial of the unpalatable truth that something which you believed in turned out to be flawed.
Posted 2 days ago
See ? I completely disagree with your claim that "it was only the people who were at fault".
Of course Thatcher, Reagan, Blair, Bush, Brown, and all the economists who advised them, including Friedman, were wrong. Because they put their complete faith in capitalism, a system which is inherently flawed. And they were not just wrong, but spectacularly wrong, because they went much further than anyone had previously with their "neo" liberal economic policies.
According to them capitalism is so perfect that all that was required was for all government intervention and "red tape" restrictions to be removed, and a liberated unregulated free-market capitalism would prosper for the good of all (of course they never actually believed that, but that at least was what they argued, and voters swallowed it hook line and sinker)
History has proved them to have been utterly wrong, capitalism is deeply flawed and allowed to run amok it will screw itself. At least John Maynard Keynes recognised this undeniable fact, and offered practical solutions to minimizes the worse effects of a flawed system which cannot be trusted.
The tragedy is that despite the overwhelming evidence that anti-Keynesian economics is not a solution to anything, many western governments still appear hellbent, after a brief lull, in trying to offer it as the only solution. Apparently you can overcome the fact that unemployment doesn't work, that screwing people's wages doesn't stimulate demand, and that austerity makes a bad situation worse, by simply having "faith" and ignoring history. And where governments lack the willingness to implement futile economic policies which lack any public support, the bankers have even been successful in having them removed and replaced by their own unelected handpicked team.
And guess what, they don't learn. So history repeats itself a decade or so later in Greece.
Listen hurty if you want to lecture me on Marxism then at least give the geezer some credit and attribute the quote to him, and quote him fully :
"History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce" Karl Marx
Welcome to the farcical age.
ernie_lynch - MemberYour inability to pay attention is worrying hurty, I hope you are more diligent in your paid work.
Ernie - you are meant to put smilies after ironic comments!! Your whole post is showing a complete lack of diligence with regards to what I said. Never mind, its boring now!
Indeed I do make the distinction between capitalists and capitalism and Keynesians and Keynesiasms for very good reason.
It is indeed a shame that there is so much anti-Keynesian sentiment around - policies that work when you have a flat LM curve. Trouble is the people who implemented Keynesian economics did it so poorly that its strengths are no ignored just when they are most needed. Did you go and read Ball's speech?
Go back to UK economic history and you will see how "people" implemented Keynes' policies badly - Tories and Labour governments. Surely you remember the phrase - "Stop, Go"? Then they mis-represented it as wanton spending - poor old JMK must be turning in his grave.
But there is no need for anyone to worry - we are all in the safe hands of President Barosso. His presentation today makes you feel so much better?!?? 
http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/president/pdf/20120130_jmbpresentation_en.pdf
OOI - where was there any reference to Marxism? Actually don't bother, it REALLY is boring.
Listen hurty if you want to lecture me on Marxism then at least give the geezer some credit and attribute the quote to him, and quote him fully :
all that was required was for all government intervention and "red tape" restrictions to be removed, and a liberated unregulated free-market capitalism would prosper for the good of allHistory has proved them to have been utterly wrong, capitalism is deeply flawed and allowed to run amok it will screw itself.
Sorry Ernie - are you saying that we achieved that? We really achieved a state where all government intervention was removed?
I mean, if we'd achieved that, and it fell apart, then you might have a point, but all you've demonstrated is that a market with continued government intervention failed - if there had been a truly influence free market, we wouldn't have bailed anyone out, would we.
I could just as easily comment out that a communist system failed, and you'd (rightly) reply "aha, but there's never been a truly communist system".
Its a pointless allegation
... more slaves about? 
wha
like the ol type o slave
or maybe a wage slave
how about sex slaves
Hurty you appear to be under the impression that keynesian economics is some sort of panacea for capitalism, it isn't. Although I have to say that I don't recall you ever putting forward a keynesian argument on here, you always appear to fully back the present government's neoliberal alternative to Keynes. You seem to be all over the place mate, still, never mind.
But no, it's not imo so much a question that "the people who implemented Keynesian economics did it so poorly", it's more a case that keynesian economics is far from perfect, it still relies on capitalism. It just tries to deal with the failings of capitalism in a more manageable way, which it does quite successfully, as it happens.
But you still get serious problems in capitalists economies whichever model they use. The most advanced and successful capitalists economies can expect not much more than say about 10 years of economic stability - maybe 20 years, top wack. The less successful ones can expect to be more or less in a permanent state of crises. All of which is piss-poor to say the very least.
So yeah, it was the failings of social-democracy which paved the way for the monetarist/anti-keynesian alternative. Although ironically and paradoxically it was also the successes of social-democracy which paved the way for monetarist/anti-keynesian governments. The improved wealth and standard of livings which were the result of social-democratic policies created a new class of individuals with high levels of expectations. The monetarists successfully tapped into this and appealed directly to their personal greed at the expense of the common good. Soon they resented paying taxes and were seduced by such things as buying their council houses at giveaway prices. They had done well under social-democracy and now they become greedy and just simply wanted more.
So anyway, basically however much you tinker with capitalism it still remains inherently flawed. None of which of course detracts from the fact that social-democracy is immeasurable more desirable and successful than brutal neoliberalism.
BTW I wasn't talking about "misquoting Marx" mogrim, I was talking about crediting the quote to him and quoting him fully. And I'm pretty sure he was the first to point out the farcical nature of how history repeats itself. And also I'm fully aware that hurty wasn't lecturing me on Marxism......I just wanted an excuse to quote Marx and point out that Marx had said much the same thing 
Good article in this month's Prospect magazine about this.
I mean, if we'd achieved that, and it fell apart, then you might have a point, but all you've demonstrated is that a market with continued government intervention failed - if there had been a truly influence free market, we wouldn't have bailed anyone out, would we.
You are forgetting the Golden rule of the free marketeer: privatize the profit, socialize the losses.
And you're forgetting that Zulu-Eleven is an Anarcho-capitalist El-bent, a rare creature which totally disapproves of any sort of government intervention.
That was in my original reply Ernie. But then I thought F*ck it, its Z11, so dumb the answer down.
Fantastic, So, you agree then, we've never tried a free market, coolio, glad we're all on the same page 
Which leaves your point on the faliure of capitalism where exactly?
Although I have to say that I don't recall you ever putting forward a keynesian argument on here, you always appear to fully back the present government's neoliberal alternative to Keynes. You seem to be all over the place mate, still, never mind.
OMG -TJ's disease is catching, help. You don't read either and you selectively quote - I hope this is a temporary blip. Have a little read about my views (even on this thread) on whether current policies work or not. Why do you think I am so opposed to what the Europeans are doing right now?
But no, it's not imo so much a question that "the people who implemented Keynesian economics did it so poorly", it's more a case that keynesian economics is far from perfect, it still relies on capitalism. It just tries to deal with the failings of capitalism in a more manageable way, which it does quite successfully, as it happens.
Ok, I have tried (and failed on a couple of occassions -sorry) not the be rude, but do you actually understand what K-ism, under what conditions it is more suitable than monetary policy and the fact that is now proven to be a redundant debate anyway?
So yeah, it was the failings of social-democracy which paved the way for the monetarist/anti-keynesian alternative. Although ironically and paradoxically it was also the successes of social-democracy which paved the way for monetarist/anti-keynesian governments. The improved wealth and standard of livings which were the result of social-democratic policies created a new class of individuals with high levels of expectations. The monetarists successfully tapped into this and appealed directly to their personal greed at the expense of the common good. Soon they resented paying taxes and were seduced by such things as buying their council houses at giveaway prices. They had done well under social-democracy and now they become greedy and just simply wanted more.
You are correct, this requires a level of intelligence WAY above my meagre level even to fathom what the argument is here. Sorry.
But you are aware that the period in the last 50 years, when monetarism in its pure form had any real hold was extremely limited? The K experiment lasted a lot longer and for the best part of 20 years we have had a combination of both ideas. Again this is basic A level economics that I know you are way past.
So anyway, basically however much you tinker with capitalism it still remains inherently flawed. None of which of course detracts from the fact that social-democracy is immeasurable more desirable and successful than brutal neoliberalism.
Please help me out - what is this social-democracy that you talk about. Is it the Uk model, the European, or something else? Edit - actually please dont bother, there is enough to digest from Davos and the Euro Summit and at least my limited knowledge of economics allows me to understand that.
What is the point in mis-representing Z11. Its bad enough doing it to one person. Two wrongs dont make a right.
Anyway - WGAF what anyone here says. Merkel has just got her way tonight and will impose further deficit reduction policies in Europe -so the crisis is about to get worse.
What did I say about people. Oh, and watch for more nonsense from Sarkozy following the GDP downward revision.
Not allowed to quote FT, but go the website and read tomorrow's headlines. Not pleasant reading but sweet dreams all the same!!
teamhurtmore - neither of us misquote and we do read what yo say ( well I have now given up). Perhaps you do not believe what you post but you simply do follow the neoliberal line in your posts and refuse to even countenance an alternative viewpoint might have any validity.
Your use of personal attacks and ridicule when the paucity of your position is shown means I for one have simply got tired of debating with you
THM - Problem is, he's not deliberately misrepresenting me, he just doesn't actually understand what he's talking about - calling me an anarcho capitalist, its just rubbish and bunkum buzzwords because he doesn't actually understand what's being talked about.
He's never actually read any Adam Smith, his knowledge of 'perfect liberty leading to perfect equality' comes entirely from the pages of the Socialist Worker, not from reading the Wealth of Nations - if he had, he'd understand the principles of a stateless society, instead of coming out with tired ad-hominem dismissals of something he's never understood.
Ernie - Go and read Wealth of Nations... it will open your eyes
teamhurtmore - I for one have simply got tired of debating with you
Leaving aside the ironing in that post, that is excellent news. Go and beat up other posters.
And read Skidelsky on Keynes for that matter.
And there again is the personal attack when your position is challenged
"they don't like it up 'em"
OK I give mate, I give up - you've completely lost the plot, as this comment clearly proves :
"What is the point in mis-representing Z11. Its bad enough doing it to one person. Two wrongs dont make a right."
There's no "mis-representing" anyone, and you're just in some sort of 'off the wall' ranting mood. Z-11 won't deny he's a libertarian who believes in Anarcho-capitalism in which governments have no role - he's certainly hasn't denied it in the past and has in fact freely admitted it.
And you are clearly going to carry on with this "I'm an economics teacher" bollox with me, as this comment shows :
"Please help me out - what is this social-democracy that you talk about."
You know damn well that the post-war consensus was social-democracy and that it now has been replaced with a different consensus. So you also know exactly what point I'm making when I say : "social-democracy is immeasurable more desirable and successful than brutal neoliberalism". Or are you going to pretend that because you are an alleged economics teacher, or whatever, you can tell me the "Thatcher revolution" never happened and we are pursuing the same economics policies as we were 30 plus years ago ?
As I've said, you've lost the plot mate and I can't be arsed anymore, though 'twas fun for a while. I will continue to contradict any of your misleading nonsense though, so don't think you can waltz around unchallenged.
Just for you TJ - I told you before that IB tactics don't work on me. So as I said go and beat up other posters.
Ernie - fine, but use simple language because your arguments lose me. Oh, and remember you came up with the idea that I was an economics teacher a few days ago (misrepresenting again). I just played a long with your joke!
Oh, and remember you came up with the idea that I was an economics teacher a few days ago (misrepresenting again). I just played a long with your joke!
Misrepresenting ? I "asked" you And notice the "or whatever" comment above, even though you apparently "played a long" with it. You do pretty good job at misrepresenting mate.
Teamhurtmore - you are the one with the personal attacks here. Bullying and hectoring. Ridiculing anythign you fail to understand or agree with.
Ernie - in the past he has claimed to be a city trader of some sort. Bond trader?
You must log in to post.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
