[Closed] I know it will bring out the left-wing flamers, but I can't help myself...

meanwhile Ill pop over to the Telegraph and see what you're banging on about Gus

TBH stoner I could post the link to the report in the Telegraph and go into a detailed discussion about it, but quite frankly I can't be arsed and I got a lot to do. Maybe I'll do it tomorrow, maybe I won't. I reckon this geezer Hannan probably doesn't deserve me spending too much time on his crap speech.

as honest a testament as needed.
🙂

Stoner, so have you come around to agreeing with me about how the bail out of the financial sector is the biggest problem as regards the future deficit? Do you see anyway that the government could have allowed these banks to fail? I've said before that I'm no GB apologist, but I don't see how they the government could have avoided taken on this private debt and making them public debt. I just wish they'd taken more control over the banks when bailing them out. We're going to be DEEP in debt for the next few years, but that debt would have been taken on by any government. The LibDems would have privatised the banks and I presume that despite what Hannan has said, the Conservatives would have done something very similar to Labour in terms of debt guarantees and phoney insurance that bails the banks out but doesn't put them properly in public hands. In fact Cameron claimed, in PMQ a few weeks ago, those policies were his own and suggested the government should have introduced them earlier.

Come now Kelvin, don't spoil stoners fun. Incidently Hannan was advocating an Icelandic style economic system before it completely collapsed.

So, the last twelve years haven't happened then? Clearly the case if everything is the fault of the previous Conservative government from 1996/7 and before. All their fault, surely.

Well the continuation of "light touch regulation" was taken from the previous Government, so I am more than happy to:

A: blame this Government for not reversing this, even though this decision would have been political suicide at the time of the "boom",

B: blame the previous government for introducing this form of regulation.

I'm sure the Torys will win the next election, but will we notice the difference?

Nice one Stoner you've found that even GG has a limit to how far he can push the "it was all Maggie's fault" line

Yes Kelvin I agree the government couldn't let the banks fail but the point is that if Culpability Brown hadn't raised public expenditure and government borrowing to the extent he has (with so little to show for it) we wouldn't now be in as deep a hole as we are after having bailed the banks out.

Guys, considering that a scumbag like DSK is head of the IMF, I wouldn't really trust the IMF to do anything to get out of the crisis.
DMK is meant to be a socialist, but his policies will make tony blair or gordon brown to be hung high and short for being reds...

Can we talk about tats? I've no idea what this thread is about, its way too-highbrow for my brain 😕

I am slightly horrified to note that the Grauniad's Micheal White has exactly the same opinion as I expressed on the first page.

[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/mar/26/conservatives-europe ]In short (well, short by my standards), the content of his viral triumph is wearily predictable Oxford Union stuff and the tone is horribly priggish.[/url]

LOL, I liked that last comment..."you wee man"

alwyn - Member

Amen to that, so true too. That's why I'm leaving as soon as I get a degree.

LOL, why not juwt **** off now then?

Stoner - Member

yes?

and?

Sorry stoner, real life got in the way of my virtual world (all good stuff though) And whilst I recognise the futility of challenging anyone's predetermined views, I decided to come back to it because I like you and because you have a surprising capacity to listen to an opposing view.

Yes, sorry, that was indeed the article which you found in the Daily Telegraph. According to the Daily Telegraph the IMF said that Britain will suffer the worst recession of any advanced nation 'due to its reliance on the financial sector'.

But what do you mean stoner "yes ? And ?" I reckon the [u]actual reason[/u] why Britain will suffer the worst recession of any advanced nation is really rather important - don't you ?

In fact, I would go so far as to say that the [i]actual reason[/i] why Britain will suffer the worst recession of any advanced nation, is [i]more[/i] important than the fact that we will suffer the worst recession of any advanced nation. And of course the [i]actual reason[/i] is quite different to the one which the Tory plonker was implying in his shite speech - making it doubly relevant on this thread. Specially as he was attempting to point the finger of blame.

So let's point the finger of blame then. From the dawn of the industrial revolution until the 1980s, Britain was a net producer of manufactured goods - we exported more manufactured goods than we imported. Then, due to deliberate government policy all that changed. A combination of disastrous monetarist policies, such as sky-high interest rates and, government unwillingness to support British manufacture, we experienced the wholesale collapse of our manufacturing base.

Not to worry, the government assured us. The British economy would move away from manufacturing into the financial sectors. A policy which was much trumpeted at the time - manufacturing would be left to third world countries which a ready supply of cheap labour, and a modern advanced nation like Britain would be left to concentrate on financial services. Indeed we were told Britain would be a great global financial centre. The future was bright, and Canary Wharf the monument built to this brave new world.

It was a however a crap idea. And it's still a crap idea. Attempting to build a stable economy based on fictitious capital is nonsense. It has to be said though that of course it's a good idea, in fact it's an [i]excellent[/i] idea, if you happen to be one of the chosen few who will make vast amounts of money out of producing nothing.

You reap what you sow, and today Britain finds itself where it is. But I'm not sure just how much proportion of the blame can placed on a man who has been Prime Minister for less than 2 years, for government policies towards British manufacturing two decades ago, and the growth of the finance industries in the 1980s.

Interestingly enough though, according that Daily Telegraph article, quote :

[i]"The IMF did offer one crumb of comfort however, saying the UK economy would grow by 0.2 per cent next year.

Its forecasts for the UK were drawn up after Mr Brown launched his £20 billion "fiscal stimulus" package of tax cuts and increased public spending."[/i]

Which suggests that whilst the IMF is saying that Britain is in the sh1t because our economy is so dependant on the on the financial sector, it apparently quite likes this present government's response to the crises.

It would appear that the new tory blue-eyed boy (who has apparently found the Tory Party clitoris) read the Daily Telegraph headline, but didn't bother reading the first sentence of the article.

Now personally I couldn't give a toss what the IMF has to say about governments economic policies (although apparently Hannan does). After all, it is IMF mandated economic policies which have caused so much misery, suffering, and death in the world. And nowhere more so than in Latin America. Here we see that after years of the neo-liberal experiment with all it's disastrous consequences, Latin America is finally ridding itself of the IMF shackles and re-establishing democratic control - to the undeniable benefit of it's people.

It is however interesting to note what the IMF says, in the same way that it is interesting to note how the Bush administration in the US entered the White House as neo-conservatives, and left 8 years later as neo-socialists 😯

The neo-conservative, neo-liberal, "the market knows best" experiment has failed. The responsibility for that, does not rest on the shoulders of one man, however much spotty-faced tory-boys up and down the country want to blame Gordon Brown.

.

And finally I think it's important to comment [i]again[/i] on the tory plonker's reference to job losses.

Unemployment is something which the Tories [i]always[/i] bleat on about when in opposition. Indeed this election poster was very much credited for wining them the 1979 general election, as unemployment [i]is[/i] a real concern to ordinary people.

[img] [/img]

Now contrary to the claim at the bottom of the poster "BRITAIN'S BETTER OFF WITH THE CONSERVATIVE" the [u]actual truth[/u] was that Britain ended up worst off with the conservatives. Because rather than reducing unemployment as they clearly suggested they were going to do, within 3 years they had actually doubled it. In fact, throughout their whole term in power, the Tories never managed to get it down to the figure it was when they came to power.

Indeed the former Tory Chancellor Nigel Lawson let the cat out of the bag concerning what Tories [u]really[/u] think, when he famously described unemployment as a, quote : "price well worth paying". A particularly callous and insensitive remark to make, considering the misery and hardship it causes. And rather strange from a party which won an election on the back of the slogan "Labour isn't working". It's interesting to see that tories such as Hannan [i]still[/i] cynically exploit people's fear of unemployment.

Hannan might have made a fine speech, but it's [i]devalued[/i] by "the truth" - he is a [i]devalued[/i] politician, from a [i]devalued[/i] party. Simple as.

Wow...I'm in love with gg!

fancy a shag ?

Only if I can sing the red flag while we do it...all together now:

Then raise the scarlet standard high
Within its shade, we'll live and die...

What the Tory Boys like Stoner and CFH fail to realise is, that although they may have relatively comfortable lives now, as unemployment and poverty increase, Britain will become an increasingly restless place. As the gap between the haves and have-nots grows, it will be the haves who will become more and more paranoid, as anger and resentment against 'wealthier' people will grow, in the minds of those who lack the economic ability to improve their situation.

See, the more you have, the less someone else has. Take away people's ability to obtain things by fair means, and they will find ways of obtaining things by unfair means.

You know where most burglary actually takes place? Not on rough inner city 'sink' estates, but in quieter, more affluent suburbs. Because there's richer picking, in the' burbs. No point in doing a council flat, as you won't find owt worth nicking. Where I live, the biggest 'victims' of burglary are those that live in new developments; young professionals who have a bit more disposable. Workers from Canary Wharf have been robbed at knifepoint, of their iPods, laptops, spensive bikes, etc. Such crimes are linked intrinsically with poverty. And most of those doing the robberies have as little respect for their victims,a s their victims do for them. Respect is an increasing rarity in our society.

You can only stay within your nice, cosy little gated community for so long. And those happy little utopian pockets are shrinking. One day, you'll have to come out into the real World. And it's no longer the nice, prosperous Tory dreamland you'd imagined it to be. Stoner thinks he's being clever, having a pop at the 'Left'. Mate, there ain't no Left, left (!), certainly not in Westminster. Everything's just gone so far right, you can't distinguish Tory from Labour any more. By having a pop at Labour, you're only having a pop at people like yourself. The Right, it seems, is eating itself.

Hold on to what you've got, 'cos you might not have it for too much longer....

Gus, as I am sure Stoner will agree, that was a come-back well worth waiting for. 🙂

GG - nice post!

You did forget tho that the oil money was wasted thru the 80s paying for people not to work. Norway invested its much smaller amount of oil money in infrastructure and in a fund for the hard times. So if we had not had the mass unemployment of the 80s that meant all the oil wealth was spent on benefits we would be much richer now and in a much better position.

Whilst this government has made mistakes no doubt - mainly IMO by being too timid the roots of this crisis go back decades not just the last decade

GG - genuninely impressed, and for the time being at a loss for words, although I will bring you up on one point now:

If you dont have communism, or indeed advanced socialism, (and lets be honest, we never will in the UK), how is the country supposed to fund its welfare requirements if the sources and uses of state funds get increasingly out of balance? i.e. increasing the size of the public sector in ratio to the private sector. That was the crux of Hannans argument about job losses - not the absolute numbers that tyou would want the argument to be about, but relative balance between commercially funded employment and tax funded employment.

I do love

(who has apparently found the Tory Party clitoris)

I have to apologise for this being a "holding post". Im not able to respond properly right now as Im not at home, prob tomorrow evening.

[i]What the Tory Boys like Stoner...[/i]
back in your box dozy. If you cant play the game with any skill, get off the pitch.

Stoner stick at it your doing a great job. Can't stop must get back to subsidising the welfare state. They know it has to be payed for and Culpability Brown (love it) has spent all the our tax money. Makes me laugh the defence of the PM they voted for him and now he's shit on us all. At least Tony would have lied with a smile.

Behave yourself, Stoner. Same old crap you spout, time and time again. And never about society itself- only money. Owt else is well outside your narrow little repertoire.

Face it, you're just another little Thatcher boy, who can't see beyond yourself and the little world immediately around you. Just another faceless suit, commuting in on the 8.15, to sit behind yer desk, wait until it's 5 o'clock, then piss off back to your soulless little suburb, complaining about how it's all someone else's fault.

Change the record, mate. Try coming up with something inertesting for a change.

You know, there's things beyond money. Like people, society, culture, that sort of stuff.

Oh, sorry; you don't do Society, do you?

Run along, Maggie's calling you...

😉

See, the more you have, the less someone else has.

Not really sure why I'm picking out a particular point though, when all Rudeboy spouts is rubbish.

No need for the childish attempt at insults, Rudeboy. Isn't that what you keep getting banned for?

Classic lefty rubbish

Not at all. Look at the poverty and despair, in places like Africa and India, and tell me exploitation does not in any way exist.

What's 'Lefty' about that? If actually giving a toss about all other people is being 'Lefty', then better Red, than wetting the bed.

Nickc; RudeBoy has never been banned. Besides, Stoner can take it. He loves it. Gives his life meaning!

(Notice the Smiley, folks. Don't take it too seriously, now, will you?)

If you cant play the game with any skill, get off the pitch

The only way you'd even get near the pitch, would be as a streaker... 😉 <NOTE THE SMILEY.

[i]RudeBoy has never been banned[/i]

tenner says it won't be long.

Chill. Stoner gave first, I gave it back. S'ok. Nowt to get alarmed about.

How about some ducklings?

[img] [/img]

Rudeboy, yak yak thacha thacha. vote left vote murder, you'd defend Stalin.

What has Stalin got to do with owt?

Did he play left-back for Leyton Orient?

Chill. Stoner gave first, I gave it back.

If actually giving a toss about all other people is being 'Lefty', then better Red, than wetting the bed.

You really jolly well have not a clue, have you?

far more important to you is dragging down other more successful people, even if that means you're worse off.

No it does not in any way. You just made that up, to suit your own ends. You behave yourself an' all.

I'm off to watch Allan Whicker.

Night.

You did forget tho that the oil money was wasted thru the 80s paying for people not to work.

LOL ! Yes TJ - I'm sure I've left out plenty of stuff ! 😉 .....I have to confess that I was trying to concentrate on just a couple of things which I could remember that the tory plonker had mentioned in his world class youtube chart topping speech.

But yeah, Michael Foot, the former leader of the Labour Party (who was accused of writing 'the longest suicide note in history' for daring to suggest in a Labour Party manifesto that the banks should be nationalised - something which conservative governments across the globe are now doing with impressive zeal) did describe it as "pouring North Sea oil down the gutters of unemployment"

.

I will bring you up on one point now:

If you dont have communism, or indeed advanced socialism ........ how is the country supposed to fund its welfare requirements

LOL ! just a 'little' question then ? ! I confess to not watching the video that intently, did Hannan bring it up ?

Anyway, the first and most important priority imo, is for social democracy to be re-established on the political agenda. Something for which unfortunately I do not see any evidence to suggest is likely to happen in Britain in the foreseeable future. 'Social democracy' has two defining qualities for me - a mixed economy, and a [i]universal[/i] welfare state. BTW, I am not a 'social democrat' any more than I'm a 'socialist' - these are just imperfect solutions, to existing problems. In the same way as I would be a 'capitalist' if I lived in a feudal society.

The emphasis is on welfare being "universal", as was the concept when the welfare state was founded in the post-war years. Universal welfare has many benefits over welfare for the poor, amongst them a tendency to maintain much higher standards. It also reduces the importance of how money is sourced ie, money spent 'here', is money saved 'there' - it's money which needs to be spent anyway.

Take the example of health care provisions. If a society needs to spend 'X' amount of money on providing the necessary health care for it citizens, that 'X' figure will be the same whether the provider is the state or whether it's private companies - is that not so ?

Well actually in the case of health care, it's not so at all. The figure 'X' is highly variable and dependent on whether the health care provider is the state or private firms. It is a fact that state provided health care throughout the world, is incomparably better value for money than privately provided health care. The private health care system in the US gives extraordinarily poor value for money. If the US provided health care through the state, it would be able to treat more people for less money.

What I'm trying to say is that, money for welfare shouldn't be seen as 'extra' money which needs to be found. It's simply money would need to be spent anyway - the only issue is how it's directed.

Sadly New Labour has moved away from a 'universal' welfare state. More and more welfare is seen as a safety net for the poor, much in the same way as it's seen in the US. This helps to cloud the issues by suggesting that it's one section of society that is paying for another section of society. Then the question is asked, "how is all this going to be paid for, if we're not allowed to get rich". If everyone thought they were paying for provisions which they themselves were using, that question would never be asked. And of course everyone would be better off if they didn't have to pay for the state health service [i]and[/i] private health care. Obviously company provided health care could be replaced with higher wages.

Anyway, getting back to Hannan and the "increasing the size of the public sector in ratio to the private sector". Yes, state intervention requires more ..... erm ....... state intervention !

And of course as we all know, public spending generally, and welfare state spending in particular, expanded under the conservative governments of the 1980s and 90s. As indeed did the tax burden. Some more simple and straight forward facts, which Hannan chose to 'forget'.

.

I do love

(who has apparently found the Tory Party clitoris)

That, I have to confess, is not original. Michael Heseltine that darling of the Tory Party, and a conservative for whom I have a tad more respect** than the Hannan plonker, was said to have the ability to find the Tory Party clitoris, such was his seductive powers to induce orgasmic delight from delegates at Tory Party conferences. I thought that accolade could perhaps be temporarily transferred to Hannan following his speech last week, which undoubtedly induced much pant wetting, mouth frothing, and squealing of delight, from tory-boys up and down the country.

**Michael Heseltine, who promised to intervene on behalf of business "before breakfast, lunch and dinner" was very much an old school tory, who's natural social democratic tendencies, were stifled and repressed by a certain tory (who's name I am not allowed to use on here) leader imo.

Wow. Seeing the length of that GG post, I was expecting to find a lot to disagree with, but quite the contrary (I suppose it helps that I don't have private health care, shan't be sending my kids to private schools etc. - partly because I'm too poor, partly because my political views aren't that right of centre, except maybe on here where it sometimes feels like a SWP meeting!) Unlike his previous, but I just can't be bothered to go over the same old ground of arguing over how far we should go back in blaming who, for the mess the next lot solved by doing something else which eventually resulted by domino effect in where we are now.

Would just quibble with a couple of points: you glibly make the case for more public spending, and suggest that's fine, as the last Conservative gov. also increased public spending (a point you seem all to happy to ignore when it suits!) However given the current gov. has continued to increase the relative size of the public sector, there does come a time when this has to stop - otherwise as Tory Boy says, there will be nobody to pay for all the public sector workers.

The other issue being that as you say, the Conservatives pumped money into welfare, and NuLab have simply ratcheted that up - and for what? It seems money disappears down a black hole with no apparent improvement. Would harnessing all the private health money really result in a wonderful all-singing NHS? (genuinely interested in comments - would be really nice if it would - I am sceptical rather than totally disbelieving).

Aracer - we still spend far less on healthcare than most other similar countries.

From memory in 1997 it was 7.8% of GDP, its now up to 9.something % of GDP.

Germany pays 14%, france 12% and USA an amazing 20% of GDP on healthcare to cover 70% of the population.

So yes the NHS needs either more money or needs to stop doing expensive things such as prescribing heceptin, transplant surgery and so on. Bring us up to the European average of 12% of GDP would mean we could actually have the healthcare we want.

The NHS needs to be taken out of political control, we need to have more and better paid and trained managers ( NHS management costs are far less than most other systems - altho of course funding is less complex so costs less to administer) We need more and better trained workforce.

Constantly changing goalposts, constant reorganisation and poor quality management are the basic problems.

we need to have more and better paid and trained managers

The problem of course with suggesting spending more of our GDP on anything right now is where exactly is the money coming from, given we're already virtually bankrupt as a country?

you glibly make the case for more public spending, and suggest that's fine, as the last Conservative gov. also increased public spending (a point you seem all to happy to ignore when it suits!)

I'm not sure that I made the point for [i]more[/i] public spending. Stoner asked me where funding for welfare requirements should come from, so I answered that question as I saw appropriate. Personally I think a lot less should be spent on funding unemployment. I did after all, quote Michael Foot's comment about "pouring North Sea oil down the gutters of unemployment".

Furthermore, I see the benefit system on this country subsidising employers who won't pay a living wage. If they paid a reasonable wage, the state wouldn't have to step in and hand cash over to their employees, or provide them with whatever other benefits. Why should the state subsidise a firm's profits ?

If an employer can't afford to pay a decent living wage, then they should be declared bankrupt. After all, If they can't afford to pay the bills to their suppliers they would be expected to go bankrupt, why should their wages bill be treated any different ?

The fact that they 'can' get away with paying low wages, doesn't mean that they 'should' get away with it. No, I'm all in favour of cutting back on our economy's dependency on the benefits system.

Of course the other way of making up for insufficient wages, is to provide easy available credit. Now, that sounds like a good idea, doesn't it ?

On the question of general welfare provisions, the state in a mixed economy, can recieve much in the way of funding from profits generated from economic activity of industries such as the utilities industries. For example, telecommunications used to generate vast profits for the UK government, and today EDF electricity in the UK, provides huge profits for the French government to spend as it so chooses.

Yeah I forgot to add (it's late and I'm tired), the reason welfare state spending went up under the tories is that unemployment and the amount of low paid jobs went up. So I'm hardly going to argue and, "make the case for more public spending, and suggest that's fine, as the last Conservative gov. also increased public spending", as you suggest.

Oh yeah, and my example of US health care shows that public spending can be much better value for money than private alternatives.

'Keep welfare spending down' I say !

I was drafting a long response thinking it the least your efforts deserved GG, but actually, I think your very good arguments require too much work on my part to take down properly, and the sun is out, so shall leave them un-abused, [i]in memoriam[/i] if you like 🙂

have enjoyed reading them.

I obvously disagree with bits and pieces of your ideology, none moreso than your dismissal of service sector industry over manufacturing industry which you condemn almost simply because of the nature of cyclical markets which are an inherent feature of almost ALL commerce, not just finance. On a longer timescale the development of the UK industry from agriculture to raw goods, processed goods, manufacturing, engineering and services is not just desireable but inevitable in a world of differential resource distribution, development and populations and free(ish) trade.

One thing we certainly do agree on is the "most important priority imo, is for social democracy to be re-established on the political agenda." I dont believe that market based capitalism neccesarily prevents that although fully free markets as favoured by Hannan probably does though. Ive always maintained that social good can almost never be served by unfettered competitive pricing.

aracer - Member

The perception as an outsider is that a lot of the money has been swallowed in more managers, for no real benefit. Is this a completely false perception?

The NHS spends far less on management than other countries and the quality of that management is poor, add in chasing spurious targets and you get poor management. One issue is the consultants still have too much power - some use it wisely but some don't. Its a Tory tactic t call for less management and the return of Matron - completely bogus in modern healthcare. What is needed is [b]well trained and highly skilled managers[/b]

The other perception is of course the one you mention of paying for more and more increasingly expensive treatments, with all the press led emotional blackmail involved with them.

A major issue. If you don't want to pay for a complete healthcare package thru taxation then there must be rationing of some sort. Unfortunatly at the moment it is covert not overt s groups who don't shout loudly get shafted. think the elderly, learning difficulties, the poor.

The problem of course with suggesting spending more of our GDP on anything right now is where exactly is the money coming from, given we're already virtually bankrupt as a country?

Increased taxes or reduced spending in other areas. For example PFI hospitals waste huge amounts of money. The amount spent on foreign wars would easily pay for it. If you want a decent NHS it has to be paid for from somewhere

[i]Would harnessing all the private health money really result in a wonderful all-singing NHS?[/i]

Needs its own thread... Dan Hannan did actually co-author something a while back on the need for improved "localism" in the NHS - a sentiment most of us would agree with. However he then started wibbling on about the need for a mixed economy in healthcare, without ever really stopping to explain how market forces "work" in, say, mental health provision, paediatric ITU or major trauma. It's an easy mantra to chant, of course - especially if you aim to make profits by, say, [url= http://www.cinven.com/ourinvestments/currentinvestments.asp?investmentid=18 ]creaming off[/url] routine elective surgery, and leaving the messy stuff for... guess who?

Gus: mighty, mighty post. Best STW thread in a while. 😀

the reason welfare state spending went up under the tories is that unemployment and the amount of low paid jobs went up

Personally I think a lot less should be spent on funding unemployment.

your dismissal of service sector industry over manufacturing industry which you condemn almost simply because of the nature of cyclical markets which are an inherent feature of almost ALL commerce, not just finance

I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I didn't recognise the important role of the finance sector in an economy, if that is what you are suggesting ? Of course it has a vital role to play. I was simply suggesting that the idea an economy could be disproportionately reliant on the finance sector at the expense of manufacturing was deeply flawed. And not least, because at you quite rightly point out, finance is no less susceptible to the cyclical nature of the markets than other sectors.

Plus of course, at the end of the day, someone, somewhere, has to produce something. So to throw your question back at you, how is society supposed to pay it's non-productive service sector if no one is actually producing anything ?

As I suggested earlier, the drive away from manufacturing into finance, was imo, more driven by political considerations than anything else. The thought of certain privileged individuals making large amounts of money, was highly attractive to the governing party of the time. As was the growth of a the more naturally pro-tory white-collar sector, over the less naturally pro-tory, blue-collar sector. A little bit of 'social-engineering' you could say. Even perhaps, dare I say, the Dame Shirley 'Westminster plan' on a grand scale 😯

The problem with the growth of non-productive forces, is that it is not sustainable - people can't keep taking a tiny slice of the profit for doing nothing. And when things go pear-shaped, there is no slack in the system and the sh1t really hits the fan, as we have seen. You can't in the name of 'competitiveness' keep 'sub-contracting' out the work and expect to recieve a profit for producing nothing. This absurd 1980s mentality has filtered through every sector of economic activity. For example, why in the name of common-sense, does a building contractor who has been awarded a contract, then sub-contract it out to another building contractor ? 😯

The line between the one who produces, and the customer, appears to be extending unabated. Stoner, just imagine what the difference is between the amount a carpenter gets for hanging a door, and the final amount the client pays, after everyone has taken their slice of the profit ! How much better it would be if we cut out some of the non-productive individuals, paid the bloke who hung the door more, and charged the client less.

Yes I accept that surveyors, managers, etc, are all part of the equation, but do we really need to involve people who have no intention of contributing in a positive way other then helping themselves to some of the profit ? Do we really need so many people living off the back of one person's work ?

And it is this same attitude which produced the crises in finance - do the deal and then, pass it on to someone else. As I've just said, the fragmentation of the profit through endless 'sub-contracting' ends leaving very little slack in the system. So when things get a little tough, because the profit margin is so tight, bankruptcy follows.

.

I dont believe that market based capitalism neccesarily prevents that although fully free markets as favoured by Hannan probably does though

Oh come come stoner ....... you and I both know that there is no such thing as "fully free markets" !

Capitalism not much beyond feudalism, is [i]always[/i] 'state monopoly capitalism'. The primary role of [u]all[/u] governments, whether they be neo-liberal "laissez-faire" goverments or not, is to manage the economy. All governments on a day to day basis intensely interfere in a multitude of ways with the economy. Whether it be through taxation, or whether it be through infrastructure provisions. The second most important politician in any country is [i]always[/i] the finance minister. Even in liberal free-market economies, the finance minister never has a minor role just watching the economy preforming on auto-pilot. And every president and prime minister in the world, treats the economy as their number one priority.

The only way laissez-faire free-market governments differ, is that they believe that the markets should be allowed unrestricted freedom to make profits. Other than that, they will do everything at their disposal to assist the markets.

That commitment however, does not extend to small businesses. As a punter on here discovered a little while back when he posted a thread asking why a government which was keen to help the banks and yet, was so unconcerned with helping his struggling small business.

It's a sad fact of life that the petty bourgeoisie, artisans, and self-employed, have always had the mistaken belief that they were somehow benefactors of capitalism just because they were allowed crumbs from the Top Table during the good times. In reality they simply drink in the lounge whilst everyone else drinks in the public bar - the drinking establishment is the same however.

On the question of social democracy being re-established on the political agenda. As I said, I can't see that being achieved in Britain in the foreseeable future. Sadly just when the world including the US, started to question the wisdom of free-market fundamentalism, the last of the big three the LibDems, decided to turn up late to the free-market fundamentalist party 😯

It's a shame because given the crises, I believe that a party which puts a strong case for social democracy would have an attentive audience. I reckon that it would have been feasible for the LibDems to build on their 20% or so base vote, and push it up into the 30s, even possibly becoming the largest party ofter the next general election. I know that it would be an unprecedented and extraordinary political achievement, but we are after all, living in 'extraordinary' times.

What remains to be seen now is what will happen to the Labour Party after the next general election, given it's credibility crises, membership crises, and finance crises - all things which whilst they are still is power, are being completely ignored.

BTW, a couple of punters have made positive comments about the contents of my posts, thank you very much but I really don't deserve credit. What I'm saying is pretty bog-standard stuff - the alternative to 'TINA', if you will.

Just as a matter of interest, is there a clip of GB's response to Tory Boy?

Just as another point of note, there's now one more hit on the idiot's YouTube clicker, but it doesn't mean (although I'm sure he will choose to present it that way) that he has one more person's support.