Jeremy Corbyn

😆

The modern welfare state was founded in nothing more that a subsistence (ie v low) level of support which is/was below the levels that we talk about today in terms of living wage etc.

Have you ever tried to claim benefits?

It's still intended to be that. It's pretty brutal, generally. The only thing is that the system has some flaws that allow some people to claim a lot of money. It's not *intended* to be that.

Yes lifer - as i said you just have to use your eyes and ears (google helps too). But too early to laud or condemn as still at v early discussion stage, hence my use of the term "fear". To move to a full UBI would be a radical step for any party let alone a Socialist one.

It may be mol, but that is a different point. The original welfare system (that seems to be universally praised) was set at a very low level - well below the idea of a living wage. It was barely a subsistence amount. Welfare has morphed a great deal since its foundation without solving the root causes - odd that..

Indeed Molls. Benefits is another one of those areas where the difference between the reality, and Daily Mail fantasy-la-la-land is absolutely immense.

Anyone who's managed to play the system and claim a shitload of money is front page news, the millions living in abject poverty, and reliant on food banks, rarely warrant a mention

The original welfare system (that seems to be universally praised) was set at a very low level - well below the idea of a living wage. It was barely a subsistence amount.

Thats where we're at now Hurty, and have been for some time. No matter what the Tory press would have you believe

The original welfare system (that seems to be universally praised) was set at a very low leve

As I said - it still is.

That's right, they won't. Meaning an end to wage stagnation, that shit job will have to offer attractive remuneration, less profit for the shareholders, granted, but more in the pocket of those with the highest propensity to consume.

But the opposite of wage stagnation is the resultant wage inflation, which would, by necessity, lead to price inflation. These not only cancel out any benefit of UBI/NIT but history tells us that these price increases disproportionately effect the poorest in society,

I would also suggest that it's utopian, in the fact that while the theory may be that giving everyone a tranche of money will alleviate poverty, in reality we would still witness kids going hungry and vulnerable members of society destitute after spending/losing/gambling/wasting/drinking/smoking/injecting all their money and thereby still requiring intervention from the state or charity to clean up the mess and support them.

0.7% of fraudulent benefit claims, Molegrips, hardly an earth shattering problem?

But the opposite of wage stagnation is the resultant wage inflation, which would, by necessity, lead to price inflation. These not only cancel out any benefit of UBI/NIT but history tells us that these price increases disproportionately effect the poorest in society,

As we have been saying - it's not an easy challenge, but worth working on imo.

I would also suggest that it's utopian

Since when is utopia a bad thing btw?

in reality we would still witness kids going hungry and vulnerable

No-one's suggesting a magic bullet to fix everything. It's a principle, the basis of a system that would improve society overall. What you're doing is equivalent to claiming your new bike is crap because the trail was muddy and you had a shit ride.

0.7%, but Dirty(Richard) Desmond goes all out to parade the worst excesses of that 0.7% on TV

Benefit may be more important than fox hunting but eyes and ears tell us that its not the key issue when it comes to government spending. Put it in the immigration drawer.

Molegrips, hardly an earth shattering problem?

What do you mean? I'm not saying benefit fraud is a big problem - just that the system isn't generous in principle, just that there are some loopholes. But my point was not complaining about the loopholes, I was responding to THM who said that the benefit system was generous and allowed a comfortable life. It's not.

THM who said that the benefit system was generous and allowed a comfortable life. It's not.

Did I? Wow, i missed that.

I'm not complaining either, 0.7% gaming the system is a worthwhile consequence for the protection of the other 99 odd per cent of genuine claims. Richard Desmond only finds the worst of those fraudsters to propagandise all over Ch 5, but if you look at the reality it's not a big problem

Your style is a joy to watch what do you
When you said this then- FWIW i agree with you that you never said generous but i have no idea what you actually mean as for some reason, and its SO unlike you , you were vague to the point of obfuscation

The original welfare system (that seems to be universally praised) was set at a very low level - well below the idea of a living wage. It was barely a subsistence amount.[b] Welfare has morphed a great deal since its foundation [/b]without solving the root causes -

As for not solving the problem it was never designed to remove the inequities inherent in a capitalist system so its not surprising they still exist.

Blimey the still cant sort this anti-semitism bit out can they.

So Walker (finally) gets (re)suspended for what the BBC describe/report as controversial comments at a training event. And the comments....?

But a leaked video emerged on Wednesday of her saying at an anti-Semitism training event: "I came here... with an open mind and I was seeking information and I still haven't heard a definition of anti-Semitism that I can work with".

Reality check or controversial comments?

Odd that they suspend Walker and Ken over non-comments and ignore the more blatant versions. Of course, it could be good old smoke and fire......

Some American woman on QT yesterday, not sure who she was, going on about how socialism was a bad idea because it failed in the 70s.

Really annoys me when people say stuff like that. It's ludicrous.

I'd you kill enough people socialism can work. Stalin or Mao should give you a rough estimate. 🙂

That's communism. Not the same thing.

0.7%, but Dirty(Richard) Desmond goes all out to parade the worst excesses of that 0.7% on TV

Which would be correct if Richard Desmond actually owned Channel5. It's actually owned by Viacom and has been since early 2014 - the current CEO is American and a lawyer by background - it's unlikely this represents any improvement on toady Richard Desmond though.

Which is why UBI would have to be implemented in tandem with a raft of other legislation and policies like rent controls to prevent profiteering.

Daz this is most significant issue with the whole of the Old Labour (which btw is a slogan on a pro Corbyn T-shirt for sale at Conference). To try and make Markist / Socialist policies work you have to have a raft of other state controls and new laws. Rent, food, imports, etc all need controls and this means less freedom and more bureaucracy (probably seen as good as that's more state jobs). In today's world the Marxist model just can't work (even if it ever did) as business will just relocate and then export into the UK. So then they have to try and "fix that" etc in the face of falling national and personal wealth and tax revenues

If it really is the case that continued automation etc reduces employment then perhaps the very harsh reality is that the population needs to shrink back down again ? 1900 40m, 1950 55m, 1960 60m, today 65m

molgrips - Member

Some American woman on QT yesterday, not sure who she was, going on about how socialism was a bad idea because it failed in the 70s.

Capitalism failed in the 70s, the 80s, the 90s, the 00s and the 10s soooooo

To try and make Markist / Socialist policies work you have to have a raft of other state controls and new laws. Rent, food, imports, etc all need controls and this means less freedom

It does, yes. And yes, less freedom - but better outcomes for more people. Freedom to let people **** each other over does not make for a happy country.

The real solution is not true socialism or true capitalism of course, it's a halfway house - which is what we have now.

I'd rather have a society with *more* socialism in it and less capitalism. But still some.

In today's world the Marxist model just can't work

I agree. When he was writing society and the economy was completely different.

Capitalism failed in the 70s, the 80s, the 90s, the 00s and the 10s soooooo

Well, that's arguable if it was a failure, because living standards etc improved. If you really want to see how capitalism failed, look at the 19th century. Much of the UK living in horrendous poverty when rich people lived in opulence off the backs of the poor they exploited. It only started to get better when, guess what, more social policies were introduced. More laws, less freedom.

Capitalism failed in the 70s, the 80s, the 90s, the 00s and the 10s soooooo

Wot no smiley?

Much of the UK living in horrendous poverty when rich people lived in opulence off the backs of the poor they exploited. It only started to get better when, guess what, more social policies were introduced.

Actually that is not true at all - its very easy to correlate social policies and standards of living and it does not support this, although the causation may take some work. Arguably the most "equitable" period of the past 150 years co-incided with very limited social policies. The subsequent increase in "social policies" did not sustain this. Inequality worsened back to levels of the last century. So the notion is easy to falsify.

I thought you were you just telling us all off for playing the man a minute ago

Are you able to articulate your point without doing that passive dismissive thing you do which is the epitome of respect?

That's communism. Not the same thing.

Not if you read your Lenin, Marx and Engels is isn't (Socialism is simply the transitory first phase of Communism)

teamhurtmore - Member

Wot no smiley?

There's nothing very funny about it tbh. Hang on, I'll give it a go.

[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/25/financial-crisis-caused-500000-extra-cancer-death-according-to-l/ ]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/25/financial-crisis-caused-500000-extra-cancer-death-according-to-l/[/url]

Smiley face!

In which case, we need to understand the causes of the financial crisis properly...

No smiley needed

[but you have a good macro prof among your staff who would be able to help. I can personally recommend him)

Just5minutes
I was under the impression, maybe mistakenly, that during the poverty porn era programming at Ch5 that it was still under Desmond's stewardship

In my defence, i haven't watched TV at home for about 7 years, i wasnt aware Ch5 was finally sold even though i heard it had been floated on the market

Reality check or controversial comments?

It doesn't matter any more, does it? Now in post-truth land the facts are irrelevant. A Jew is vilified for seeking clarity over a definition of anti-semitism and that is claimed to make sense 🙁

It does matter if you are going to suspend someone - or are you too weak to stand up for truth?

Doesn't make sense to ignore the blatant and punish the non-existent either. Good job these boys have no hope of power at the moment. Then it would matter even more.

teamhurtmore - Member

In which case, we need to understand the causes of the financial crisis properly...

Which of the causes do you imagine aren't a failure of capitalism?

Most of them.....it would be a shorter list to suggest which were

hahahahahaha

Your right capitalism is not boom and bust and the crash was not an inevitable consequences of capitalism... i mean its not like we have seen a bust before and its not like we ever will again 🙄

Crashes within capitalism are inevitable- get a ****ing graph if you disagree or we can discuss this again within the next 20 years - assuming we go that long.

It does matter if you are going to suspend someone - or are you too weak to stand up for truth?

Hmm. I'm wondering what you imagine you're replying to? When I said that the truth doesn't matter, do you read that as meaning that the truth doesn't matter to me? At what point does what I wrote have anything that do with my own weakness or otherwise?

I'd rather boom and bust, than permanaent bust.

But anyway boom and bust will happen in every system its human nature and also the UK doesn't exist in the world alone. For instance plenty of oil producing countries with of all types of political systems are suffering right now.

No dr - my English was sloppy but couldn't be bothered to edit. I was referring to the Labour party.

teamhurtmore - Member

Most of them.....it would be a shorter list to suggest which were

OK so so far you've said "Speak to someone else, they'll explain what I mean" and when asked to identify one, you said "most of them" but couldn't give any examples. We're not really getting any further forward are we?

Ok - state distortion of the housing market and how it is/was funded - a root source

Central Banks flooding economies with liquidity at exactly the wrong time to cover up THEIR past mistakes

Inability to regulate markets and understand leverage

And that is just to start. Sweet FA to do with capitalism.

Interesting question. Seems planned Econimies are immune to some economic cycles:

https://www.quora.com/Did-Russia-under-Communist-rule-and-centrally-planned-economy-suffer-from-boom-bust-cycles-which-are-characteristic-of-richer-capitalistic-countries-If-not-or-much-lesser-why

teamhurtmore - Member

Ok - state distortion of the housing market and how it is/was funded - a root source

Central Banks flooding economies with liquidity at exactly the wrong time to cover up THEIR past mistakes

Inability to regulate markets and understand leverage

And that is just to start. Sweet FA to do with capitalism.

All 3 of them failures of capitalism.

No they are not.

Start again - your colleagues in the econs dept will be able to help

Didn't you once work for one of our failed banks - I would have thought you would have better knowledge than most.

Ah, we're back to "Go and get someone else to defend my argument for me", good stuff.

Well you need some help with the basics and they are good guys - I know one of them personally

I think he was rather hoping you would explain the "basics" rather than evade, avoid and patronise.

Why he was this naive I know not. Has he not see what you do on here when asked to explain your views?

Well the dot com boom and bust wouldn't have happened in a planned economy as there would have been no 'dot com' boom in the first place.

But really the financial melt down happened in western mixed economies and there were failings all around by governments, central banks, private companies etc. no one exits in a vacuum.

Capitalism isn't perfect but it is far better than the alternatives.

Northwind, Junkyard,

If you can't see that state regulation isn't capitalism, the US government guaranteeing Fanny Mae and Fanny Mac isn't capitalism and saving failing banks is the antithesis of capitalism, you're in a poor place for ascribing failings in these to capitalism.
And no, I'm not going to spend any time explaining the basics of capitalism to you either.

Gowrie 😀

You might as well play chess with a pigeon

But would it have been better to let the banks fail? (Serious question)

Being able to get to a point where something is too big to fail (regardless of the discussion about whether state rescue should happen) is a problem with capitalism though, isn't it?

But would it have been better to let the banks fail? (Serious question)

But would it have been better to let the banks fail? (Serious question)

Economies require a functioning banking systems. Banks represent one part of the transmission mechanism that lies between the Central Bank and the Real economy. So there is a key distinction between letting one bank fail (Barings) and seeing a systemic failure of the whole banking system. Arguably Lehmans lay right on the boundary of this distinction!

So the answer, it depends on the risk to the whole system and to the economy.

BTW, this is still a problem as banks are failing to provide this transmission mechanism now which is why the current policy mix isn't working, But that's another issue related to fact that people don't understand the nature of the current slowdown.

Being able to get to a point where something is too big to fail (regardless of the discussion about whether state rescue should happen) is a problem with capitalism though, isn't it?

No, it is a problem of excess leverage (part of which has been encouraged/driven by the heavy hand of the state and central bankers resulting in markets that are anything but free. )

You might as well play chess with a pigeon

I spy abuse creeping in.

If you can't see that state regulation isn't capitalism, the US government guaranteeing Fanny Mae and Fanny Mac isn't capitalism and saving failing banks is the antithesis of capitalism, you're in a poor place for ascribing failings in these to capitalism.

But why were these things needed in a perfect capitalist world?

Doc, you have answered your own question.

They weren't
It isn't

This was just one example of a highly distorted market which led to a catastrophic mispricing of risk and caused severe and lasting damage not only to banks but also to the wider economy. It's the antithesis of capitalism.

BTW don't confuse advice with abuse. Since religion is frowned upon here, I simply referred Gowrie to the secular version of Pv26:4. Feel free to misread that at your leisure, it is Sunday after all.

You might as well play chess with a pigeon

Why do you do the things you deplore in others on here? I know its not because you lie as well you dont do that but what causes such blatant hypocrisy in you? Is it just lack of moral fortitude?

, I'm not going to spend any time explaining the basics of capitalism to you either.

The fact that capitalism needs regulating is the fault of capitalism

To blame the state for this is like blaming the courts and police for there being criminals.

i see.

Good to hear Doc

But why were these things needed in a perfect capitalist world?

No silly it was the regulators fault the bankers went rampant not the bankers- they were the victims of poor regulation.

If we had not attempted to, and failed, to regulate them then obviously everything would have gone very very well.
Are you not listening to the economics lectures from the experts on here?

Teamhurtmore, let them crack on about Capitalism. We need to ensure they are making these arguments at the 2020 General Election

In a perfect world we'd have strung up a few thousand bankers. But we don't live in a perfect worl

We had a long Banker Bashing thread. All of of the following where responsible

Failire of Regulation, particularly to respond to a sustained period of low interest rates = very cheap consumer debt
Failure of some banks / lenders to follow remotely prudent criteria = irresponsible lending (eg HBOS letting mortgage brokers know they NEVER checked files)
Widescale mortgage fraud with people lying on applications in the knowledge the banks never checked them
Far too much borrowing
.. many other factors too

Nothwind et al the European Soverign Debt crises is going to make the Banking/Credit crises of 2007/8 look like a small hiccup

True but e7 needs a clean first - metaphorically speaking!!

Any ex-HBOS employees around?

You might as well play chess with a pigeon

Avoid the EU thread for a bit - "incoming"..... 😉

Reshuffle starting NOW!

Might be over by Christmas. 😉

Even corbyn can shuffle three cards in a short period of time 😉

It would certainly be more fun

The reality is that the market needed regulation
the regulation failed
Whether you wish to blame the regulation or the fact it needs regulation is a point decided largely by your view of a perfect market/capitalism.
An argument can be made either way

IMHO the fact capitalism requires regulation[ investment and "normal" banking being split for example] is a fault in capitalism. the market is not perfect hence it gets regulated. Its so imperfect and the participants so greedy even regulation wont stop boom and bust....though of course it will be everyone fault but the bankers and capitalism when this happens
Still saying this is clearly a very stupid point and you rightly beat the argument with some pretty powerful name calling which THM does not do and object to so strongly; thank the lord he is not a hypocrite who says one thing and does another
😉

Shami and Dianne - great to see meritocracy at work in modern Labour politics.

I always thought Shami came over as thoughroughly decent. Guess not.

I can't help liking Diane though.

Jezza - leader of the oppo
John - shadow chancellor
DIanne - shadow home

That's a team and a half

It's a bonanza time in UK politics right now

I am stunned that the political neutra lTHM Is disappointed with the choices

WHo could have foretold such a thing

In latest news I am still not a Tory though I am prepared to openly admit my politics ...so THM who do you support then 😉

Well at least Shami Corbers and Dianne have something in common apart from politics - they all have / had kids who went to private schools.

The privileged few?

Did Shami get her kid(s?) In to Slough Comp, then?

"I always thought Shami came over as thoughroughly decent. Guess not.
I can't help liking Diane though."

+1 to all that. DA may have said some crazy things but on TW she was excellent and I'm prepared to judge he by that.

[quote=teamhurtmore ]The privileged few?

Yes you do so rail against them in general
Still its good to have principles and apply them consistently - certainly applies to you and DIanne ...imagine you and DI have something in common 😉

Corbyn divorced a wife over this IIRC so a bit weak to have a pop at him for it

FFS this thread gets worse and worse and worse

Its not really a discussion this is it

..imagine you and DI have something in common

They've both boffed Jez?

😈

Nah, not that posh.

Dulwich I think - rough lot judging by the sledging their cricket teams get involved in

Not even THM has mad up something that silly but very amusing 😆

Relative to the Tories, Labour have actually gone up in my estimation this week.

But that's only relative to the Tories.

oldnpastit - Member
Relative to the Tories, Labour have actually gone up in my estimation this week.

But that's only relative to the Tories.

to be fair Borris Johnson is our actual Foreign Secretary, straight up, for realz,

maybe corbyn could appoint Mr Tumble to his shadow cabinet, that might match it

[img] [/img]

Agreed, the last Tory PM didn't believe in private education did he? Although I think he has seen the light now.