[Closed] Thatcher's died according to BBC

BTW Labour under Blair didn't put up taxes. In fact the basic rate was reduced under Blair

I thought National Insurance contribution rates increased under Blair and Brown.

dannyh --not sure if you are just trying to be pedantic--we all live in a capitalist society at the moment--so we have to make the best of what we can--ergo--nothing wrong with an enlightened 'exploiter' if thats what you would like-- he even makes a jokes about it himself--but really what is it that you find strange-- there are other people who live here, who also could easily afford to move to more 'upmarket' areas--but they choose to live here,where they have friends , family and community--that thing that really got Thatchers goat....

community--that thing that really got Thatchers goat....

Really? Do you have a quote to that effect? Thanks.

A little bit disingenuous. Stealth taxes? Massive debt (i.e. taxing people in the future)?

He was talking about taxing his hard earned money, there's nothing disingenuous about pointing out that the basic rate went down, not up, under Blair.

He also suggested that under Blair taxes went up compared to under Maggie. There is nothing disingenuous in pointing out that the UK tax burden was higher under Maggie than under Blair, since it's actually true.

If we lived in a capitalist society there would be a number of banks that went bust in recent history and absolutely no regulations on any type of trade. We live in a very regulated pretend capitalist dictatorship, in the same way that certain countries were run as pretend communist/socialist societies. Often the give away for these countries was the word democracy in the country title, often the only place it was used I their country. It's a bit like saying we live in a free market economy. We don't and have not for a very long time. 🙂

A little bit disingenuous. Stealth taxes? Massive debt (i.e. taxing people in the future)?

If low paid workers actually got paid enough to live on, there might be less debt

It's a bit like saying we live in a free market economy.

Well done. You've discovered that the free-market economy is a myth. And the reason it's a myth is because it doesn't work, other than in theory of course.

You say I am pedantic. I'd say your lack of a definitive answer makes you evasive when pressed.

It's nothing to do with 'what I'd like'. I feel I can see a glaring contradiction in the example you use to highlight 'working class solidarity' when it is put alongside your Trotskyist principles. That's all.

But basically you have said that if you accept the status quo, then individual wealth is ok if you employ others. This is the position that the USSR eventually adopted towards CPs in capitalist countries. A sort of watering down of the original rhetoric when faced with the fact that the revolution would never spread into democratic capitalist countries.

If a revolution were to take place, though, would you support forcible requisition of this guy's wealth or would he be spared as he is 'one of us'.

I'm interested in how you can reconcile an absolutist doctrine like trotskyism with the contradictions you must face every day.

My position is basically anti-ideology. I don't think anything should be done for ideological reasons alone. This is why I would say privatisation of BT was a good idea (comparatively low value, long-lasting infrastructure upon which companies can compete for custom, hopefully driving down prices for the consumer). And why privatisation of British Rail was a disaster (far higher value of infrastructure and higher maintenance costs meaning no truly private company would touch it with a barge pole, leaving the 'bad bit' essentially paid for by the taxpayer whilst private companies trouser the profits).

I view blind ideology as a poor substitute for actually thinking about things.

Ernie, thanks for telling me that I have discovered we don't live in a free market economy. I discovered this quite recently about 1976 could have been 75. How do you know it does not work? Who has tried it?

Edit, spelt your name wrong, comp school education.

How do you know it does not work? Who has tried it?

I know it doesn't work because pretty much everyone has tried it.

you want to be able to work the hours of two jobs when there isn't enough work for everyone...if you'd have just told us that you loved thatcher because she enabled you to be selfish and greedy

ernie_lynch - Member
How do you know it does not work? Who has tried it?
I know it doesn't work because pretty much everyone has tried it.

like who? Can you name me some countries that are fully unregulated free markets with no central or local government regulation?

Thatcher..? Dead..?

Margaret Thatcher..?

How did that happen..?

[img] [/img]

Can you name me some countries that are fully unregulated free markets with no central or local government regulation?

That's the point, it can't be done. A completely free-market economy wouldn't last a week before total chaos set in. So you are not going to find any countries which operate it.

I love the fact that they are going to open a library in memory of the old bat , funniest thing I have heard for yonks !!!!!

dannyh -- you seem to have some contradictory views there, you are agin any ideology--yet espouse 'free market' tosh when it suits-- all utilities should be there for the greater good-- not sure if you know about postal services throughout the world--but the uk had the best for many years, so the privateers cherry picked the 'profitable' side and left the letters section to become 'unprofitable'-- that has been the same with the railway-the same they are applying to the health service--its ideological-- because they hate the idea that there are alternatives to their free market(irony)-- social housing is another example of sharing the cost over generations--a capitalist wants a return in a few years not decades--selfish see-- and as for Trotsky-- you need to do a bit more reading if you wish to grasp what he was about-- my man with his boat would happily give that up if it meant the world was a truly fair place--history shows that 'fairness' is not given by those who benefit from exploitation...

free market- only means rigged market for those in control-- with capital -- its a myth perpetrated to justify capitalist ideology-- as ernie says its not possible at any level-- it all needs regulating and controls -- so a state is a prerequisite for any meaningful society-- the question is do you want a state that is for the greater good for the most people--or a system that enriches a few at the expense of the mass ?

So as we have never had a free market economy how do you know it does not work? What is it that makes us need a state to regulate the economy, the country or more scarily individuals?

"the question is do you want a state that is for the greater good for the most people--or a system that enriches a few at the expense of the mass ?"
I don't want a state at all (in perfect world). I like the idea that there are individuals who look after themselves, there families and those around them without the interference of a state. If we could all do this things would be peachy. I'm sticking with the concept of a stateless utopia where rights and responsibilities are understood by all. The only state I'll go for is a happy state of mind.
After all who sets the rules for the state, who makes sure the rule setters are fair? You guys would constantly argue. Enough of your left right rubbish. Be centered and be free.

Oh are you a Freeman on the land?

So as we have never had a free market economy how do you know it does not work? What is it that makes us need a state to regulate the economy, the country or more scarily individuals?

Eh?

Suddenly a magic wand is waved (ooer) and we turn into a complete free market economy.

The biggest company starts buying up all the other companies below them. No regulation to stop them. Eventually you'd end up with a few very very big monopolies. Which can then charge what they want. No regulation to stop them. Further along you may end up with a single monopoly.

We'd end up with a single company to produce something that you have no control over purchase. You need food? You buy it from this company at this price. You don't *have* to buy it, but it is the only place to get it from. You start your own company? They'd find ways of locking you out or simply buying you out, or making their products incompatible. Or buying up your suppliers.

An example from recent history would be Microsoft. If some (weak IMO) regulation hadn't been in place it would have bought Apple then a PC manufacturer then you would have only been able to buy a MS-branded PC to run Windows, which runs all software. Then they'd buy the software houses, etc. etc. (for MS put Apple in now if you like).

I'm a freeman, it's a state of mind. Some like to let the rage against the system/state or whatever take them. Me "I'm a freeman(on Sunday)", like the Manchester Rambler.

AdamW - Member

Was trying to learn some fundamentals. So what is it that makes us as humans (companies are made up of groups of humans, like News International or BP) need to be regulated, what is it that requires us to have rules of trade or to be regulated? I was trying to see if anyone can suggest a reason as a collective species we cannot be trusted to be fair to each other without being told what we should do and how to behave. Is it that enough of us cannot be trusted to treat each other with respect and honesty. If so then it must apply to more than just trade but all areas of human activity. That being the case (if it is) all the political spectrum cannot be any different, it being run by humans.

Just a few thoughts.

That's why socialism is just as flawed as Thatcher's policies.
(Too many) People are selfish and greedy.

Sbob. That's no way to talk about people you cynic. 🙂

I'm avoiding going into the London office tomorrow.

Anyone else? 😐

There are plenty of good reasons for avoiding London...

Tomorrow I'll be thinking about all the people whose lives were prematurely ended or blighted by Thatcher's policies, and whose suffering isn't recognised or remembered.

I shall be avoiding all forms of media tomorrow and go for a ride. I may even have a glass of milk.

I'll check to see if there is a riot.

So as we have never had a free market economy how do you know it does not work? What is it that makes us need a state to regulate the economy, the country or more scarily individuals?

Dark satanic mills
Child labour
Child deaths at works
The reality is owners will do any number of moral ills to make some more money as a quick glance at history will tell you.

The stateless society with "unregulated individuals" has been tried we call it the Wild West and it was most unlike what you think will spring up from no rules as we all suddenly become nice because there are no rules.
the internet may also give you a current example of how nice everyone is when not regulated

Can you name me some countries that are fully unregulated free markets with no central or local government regulation?

Somalia? Or has someone else already done this one.
It does have local and central government regulation, but it appears to be completely ignored.

Dark satanic mills
Child labour
Child deaths at works

If you are talking about Victorian Britain there was state intervention, it wasn't a laissez-faire free market economy. And not just state intervention on social issues, but also infrastructure projects.

well [ having bothered to read the thread 😳 ] is that there was always regulation as the market is fundamentally flawed so you are correct that there was none - well there must have been at some point with barter I guess.

My view is that regulation is a reaction to what happened without it

well there must have been at some point with barter I guess.

The original question asked for an example of free-market capitalism, whilst their might have been no state intervention under the barter system, it wasn't capitalism.

Goes of to read even more of the thread 😳

My view is that regulation is a reaction to what happened without it

Interesting, isn't it?

Free marketeer = anarchist.

Neither of whom actually knows how human nature works, but both have a wonderful idea HOW it should.

We have to deal with the reality.

Democratic socialism is the only method that has ensured that the majority of humans are satisfied with their lives.

Embrace human nature.
Love all the people.
Treat others as you would yourself.
Judge your society by how you treat the least fortunate.
Bollocks to dogma.

I may even have a glass of milk.

I'm having a mr whippy.

Democratic socialism ? Very interesting, any working examples ?

why do you need to put a question mark after democratic socialism ?

Very interesting, any working examples ?

Clement Atlee 1945 would be an obvious homegrown example

I may even have a glass of milk.
I'm having a mr whippy.

I'm having a mr whippy.

i immediately thought of douglas hird from spitting image

mt - Member

So as we have never had a free market economy how do you know it does not work?

You can draw conclusions from historic situations which are, IMO, impossible to resist without resorting to irrationality.

We have a largely free market with specific controls. Companies go to great lengths to escape these controls, legally and otherwise. They're not normally especially strong controls either- not strong enough, once degraded, to stop the invisible hand from fisting itself. Ultimately, companies do what they want whenever they can get away with it.

Now, I know there are those who believe that the reason companies destroyed themselves was [i]because[/i] of these weak controls- that they create a false impression of safety which encourages organisations to act dangerously. And frankly, these people should be identified, and prevented from ever holding any position of responsibility, because they are quite mad.

We have laws in society. People break these laws, and invent new crimes that are outwith the existing laws. Do we believe they all do this because they just don't like laws? And that if we only did away with these silly laws, everyone would be lovely to each other?

When I was working for the bank (a bank now recognised widely as a benchmark for Being Shit), the culture where regulation was concerned was that of ignoring it- or rather, paying it enough attention to dodge it. Now they didn't do that out of some prankish sense of fun or challenge- LOL, it's the FSA, let's lead them a merry dance. They did it because they wanted to do things that regulations would prevent.

And then, they completely destroyed themselves. Could better regulation have stopped that? Perhaps- I suspect it'd largely have led to better deception/evasion. But you have to be nuts to think it happened [i]because[/i] of regulation. In a free market, they'd have done the same things, and more.

"More, better capitalism" imagines that placing a bucket of water at the foot of a cliff encourages people to jump off. And then, it imagines that kicking over the bucket will render the cliff completely safe.

And that's pretty much all I have to say about that.

I will be trying to avoid all the coverage of the funeral tomorrow. A Mr Whippy sounds like a good enough way of passing the time 😀

I shall be:

[img] [/img]

The one on the right I know about so doesn't get my support, the one on the left I have no idea, who is he?

Jim.

Jim who?, seriously, who is he?