Generation Right (Wing)

Now, the balance has to be struck, or should I say re-balancing. The payment has to be bought forward and consumption delayed.

Now I’m no economist, but even I know that debt never gets truly repaid, they just print more money and inflate it away. A cynic might say that the current austerity drive is simply the capitalists/tories using the current situation to further enrich themselves and consolidate their power by using silly metaphors like ‘national credit cards’ to fool the public into thinking its for their own good.

Its a myth that you can achieve anything you want through just throuhg hard work. And its this myth that is sold to generation right wing every since they were in nursery school.

But whats the alternative to tell our children?

Que Sera Sera kids, don’t bother trying, don’t strive for knowledge because you’re probably doomed to a life of drudgery in a dead end boring job shuffling paper like the rest of us, don’t work hard because its not worth it, in fact fukit, you might as well go and kill yourself now rather than just adding to the burden!

How beneficial would that be for (the abstract concept we call) our society? Without the strive for a better life we’d still be living in a cave, smashing bones with rocks and cowering at the angry thunder gods!

I suppose we should tell the kids that santa doesn’t exist either, he’s just a capitalist trick to make your parents buy you consumerist goods in lieu of spending time with you. That would do them a load of good, wouldn’t it? I suppose Christmases in your house must be a bundle of fun!

Yes, you are right, we don’t really pay it back. We either run away (default – yes even us) or we steal it back. At the moment the perceived wisdom is that it is better to steal it. The technical term/smokescreen is financial repression but don’t let that fool you. It is theft. The powers that be will artificially hold IR lower than inflation/GDP to erode the debt. Those of us who are savers will not be rewarded for the risk that we take – and we live in a capitalist free market? Now of course, this could go horribly wrong and the inflation monster will return. The result is the same. We will have lost the value of our money. Either way the state will have stolen it directly or indirectly.

In this so-called free market economy of ours we have the state machine deliberately mispricing risk in order to make people do things that they would not otherwise do with the prospect of returns that are well below those that they should be achieving. And politicians expect to be popular in the process!?!. Good luck to them. Lousy bloody job, sorting this mess out.

Without the strive for a better life we’d still be living in a cave, smashing bones with rocks and cowering at the angry thunder gods!

Don’t think anyone’s arguing that we shouldn’t strive for a better life, just that it’s a conscious decision on the party of ‘society’ as to whether we strive for a better life for everyone, or just a few. ‘Striving for a better life’ is not synonymous with ‘capitalism’.

Whose fault? who was responsible for this? the banks, or their own greed?

i think if you grow up with capitalism you start to think you can have the wins it offers and people forget it is IMHO gambling. Both basically.

The crisis was not caused by the banks (at least not in isolation). It was caused by massive accumulation of debt by governments, companies, banks and individuals

True but you cannot blame folk [ well you can but they are the least to blame IMHO] for taking money when offered it- NINJA loans for income. The banks were the professionals they should have behaved professionally. If someone offer people things they cannot afford many folk are too daft to realise this. i was offered a 5 x salary mortgage and 3 x an obviously pregnant wifes salary [ so the salary would clearly stop/reduce] for example. i took less than 50% of what I could get!!!!

Either way the state will have stolen it directly or indirectly

Steal is too strong a word but yes the analysis is correct. Perhaps what we should learn that we all get shafted with capitalism ? Not a bad way to reduce your debt though if you control the means. Slightly better than printing money as well 😉

Perhaps what we should learn that we all get shafted with capitalism ?

Seems to me it’s not the ideologies which shaft people, but governments. Whether you’re talking capitalism, socialism, communism or whatever the one common trait is that you have a small number of people and institutions who hold disproportionate power over the rest of the population. Yet the failings in society are rarely apportioned to the state, and instead are laid at the door of the system it is trying to implement. It’s the main reason I’ve always been attracted to anarchism, despite the obvious difficulties with it.

Perhaps what we should learn that we all get shafted with capitalism

I think I’d argue that we don’t ‘all’ get shafted

You gave a perfect example above of taking personal responsibility for your own risk mitigation – this is the thing that meant you didn’t get shafted

You could have borrowed more but you didn’t, if you had borrowed all that money and interest rates changed, so you were stuck in negative equity and unable to repay the mortgage then I (and I’m sure you) would hae no problem with the idea that you *should* lose your house, at the same time the bank (and subsequently the people who invested in it) *should* lose their money too.

But who’s going to vote for the political party that says ‘ tough shit, its your fault’, when theres an alternative political concept out there that says ‘its all the banks fault, not yours, and the rest of the taxpayers can dig you out of your the hole you dug for yourself if you vote for us’

Perhaps the biggest weakness of democracy is its over reliance on populism?

you have a small number of people and institutions who hold disproportionate power over the rest of the population

Its not that they hold this power it is that wield in their own self interest rather than ours.
Ninfan the main problem is that some of the general population are not all that clever/capable [ I work with them and I mean this not as an insult nor a brag]. How many folk would have realised they could not actually afford it when things went wrong- the banks should have and did realise this they just did not care.
Greater responsibility is all well and good but sometimes it is like leaving the 14 year old at home whilst you go on holiday and thinking they have listened when you told them not to have a party. iT wont always end well and you have to pick up the pieces and the bill.

Perhaps the biggest weakness of democracy is its over reliance on populism?

Depends what you mean by populism? If you mean tabloid inspired ignorant bandwagon jumping, then yes I’d agree. Or you could have a well informed and educated population fully engaged in politics at a local and grassroots level, which would be a very good thing.

Seems to me it’s not the ideologies which shaft people, but governments.

But they don’t do they, not necessarily anyway.

Governments help to educate people, administer justice for them, provide them with health care, build roads for them, look after them in old age, regulate the food they eat and how it’s prepared, secure energy supplies for them, protect them from crime, invest in sports facilities for them, the list is endless.

Governments take care and help people, they make a society civilized. In countries where there is no functioning government and where they have reverted to the law of the jungle the people are truly shafted.

We are right to demand much of our governments and right to criticize when they fail.

Governments take care and help people, they make a society civilized. In countries where there is no functioning government and where they have reverted to the law of the jungle the people are truly shafted.

Some very bold claims there. I think if you looked across the world throughout history you’d almost certainly find that the governments which ‘took care and helped people’ were in a tiny minority. Same goes for making society ‘civilised’, which is again debatable when you consider that in only the last 100 years governments have been responsible for wars which have killed and maimed billions of people.

And there are plenty of examples of people living perfectly harmonious lives with no functioning central government.

So, summary of ^^:

The economy is utterly screwed
The ‘recovery’ is a myth
The causes of the crisis have not been dealt with
The ordinary man will be picking up the pieces for the rest of their lives and government are just looking after themselves

I suspect, at least, this is the conclusion the populace at large have come to…

Personally I do worry that Gideon pulled the housing market trick. It suggests a significant lack of confidence in the strength of the underlying economy. If the recovery is really there, why did he need to use the illusion of higher house prices to boost consumer confidence?

Nope ernie is correct

governments are the response to the lawlessness that develops without rules where force wins the day- the antidote to the Wild West

Where you find weak govt – Sudan/Somalia for example you dont find brotherly love and harmonious relations.

there are no examples of large numbers of people [ millions as in a countries] living harmonious lives without governments, courts, police etc.

yes they sometimes do bad stuff but the alternative always does bad stuff as it is the case of might is right.

Some very bold claims there.

I would rather describe it as self-evident claims ….. all the examples I give are functions carried out on a day to day basis by governments throughout the world, there’s nothing particularly bold about saying that.

And while there are of course examples of people living perfectly harmonious lives with no functioning central government, there are no example of countries operating as such.

I accept what ernie and junkyard are saying, but then what are the various anarchist intellectuals throughout history basing their ideologies on?

They must have thought it through

….but then what are the various anarchist intellectuals throughout history basing their ideologies on?

On exactly the same thing as me – an aspiration. They are not basing it on an analysis of historical or existing conditions, well apart from analyzing what they don’t want.

I too aspire that human society will develop and evolve into autonomous societies without states or state structures. And I think it probably will.

You’re confusing no government with no commonly accepted limits of behaviour. Even in places like Sudan/Somalia, the majority of people are peaceable. It’s only a minority which opts for violence. People don’t suddenly become killers if the government ceases to exist.

As for example, some quick googling reveals….

Free Territory of Ukraine

Autonomous Shinmin Region Korea

and perhaps the best example…..

Revolutionary Catalonia

Admittedly these were all short-lived but it could be argued that their disappearance was more to do with outside forces than an inherent failure of the system itself.

I would rather describe it as self-evident claims ….. all the examples I give are functions carried out on a day to day basis by governments throughout the world, there’s nothing particularly bold about saying that.

Yes these are things that governments do, but it’s not exclusively the domain of governments to provide these things. If you read further about the example above, you’ll see that society didn’t suddenly collapse on the removal of centralised government. Quite the opposite in fact.

Even in places like Sudan/Somalia, the majority of people are peaceable. It’s only a minority which opts for violence.

I’m not sure why you think it’s all down to just violence, although Somalia is quite a violent place.

I said that governments educate people, administer justice for them, provide them with health care, build roads for them, look after them in old age, regulate the food they eat and how it’s prepared, secure energy supplies for them, protect them from crime, and invest in sports facilities for them, I didn’t mention violence.

Do the people of Somalia, or any other areas with no functioning government, enjoy all those benefits which I’ve listed ?

“but then what are the various anarchist intellectuals throughout history basing their ideologies on?”

Getting some one else to wipe their collective bottoms.

Good debate ladies and gents. Thanks.

I said that governments educate people, administer justice for them, provide them with health care, build roads for them, look after them in old age, regulate the food they eat and how it’s prepared, secure energy supplies for them, protect them from crime, and invest in sports facilities for them,

I put it to you that in its time the church has fulfilled all of those roles in (the abstract concept that we call) society too, it doesn’t make it a universal force for good though, does it?

I didn’t mention violence.

Yeah I know that’s why I was replying to JY 😉

To repeat the above point though, all the things you list are not the exclusive preserve of centralised government. Are you really trying to use the failed and chaotic state of Somalia as the prime example of how centralised government is the only answer to all our problems?

Daz i would support what you want but the reality is a lack of government does nor lead to brotherly love….have you read Lord of the Flies 😉

Of course most folk are decent but we need protection form the least decent for they are the ones who will come for us.

Lack of regulation and /or the lack of an ability to enforce it, be it in the amazon rain forest or internet behaviour, rarely leads to the pinnacle of humanity.

Yeah I know that’s why I was replying to JY

Fair point.

And I thought it was you not me that brought Somalia into the argument.

But anyway we’ve got two different points of view and I need to go to the timber merchants, so I’ll let you slog it out with JY. Good luck to the pair of you and please fight clean.

Of course most folk are decent but we need protection form the least decent for they are the ones who will come for us.

Well funnily enough I agree here. This is one of the areas where I have most trouble with anarchism, the idea of local vigilante justice to deal with those who wish to cause harm to others. Growing up on a council estate I’ve seen vigilante justice in action and it’s not particularly palatable.

There are many problems with anarchism, but the idea of organising society from the bottom up where people are directly involved in politics at a grassroots level seems more attractive than the current shambles where we have an ill-informed and ignorant electorate, voting for largely unknown ‘representatives’ who routinely fail to deliver on their promises with little or no accountability or transparency.

“ill-informed and ignorant electorate” only one of those applies to me.

dazh, being as you is from a council estate have you got an England flag on your car?

dazh, being as you is from a council estate have you got an England flag on your car?

What do you think? 😆

where you get it from? 😀

but the idea of organising society from the bottom up where people are directly involved in politics at a grassroots level seems more attractive than the current shambles where we have an ill-informed and ignorant electorate

I dont disagree but I dont think anarchy is the vehicle to achieve this

That is exactly what anarchism is – an autonomous society where people govern themselves instead of being governed by others.

Normal people can’t be arsed. They just want to get on with lives.

It’s only the people who you really wouldn’t want in charge of anything that get involved in politics.

Normal people can’t be arsed. They just want to get on with lives.

I’d disagree on that. Normal people can’t be arsed engaging with a system which gives them no power, which dismisses their concerns and promises them the earth every 5 years only to then renege on the promises. Add to that the blatant corruption and fiddling of those who claim to be representatives and it’s not surprising people can’t be arsed.

However, if you give people direct influence over interests they’re concerned about, whether that’s pot-holes in the road, dangerous driving, a new development being built near their house, local kids causing a nuisance etc, I’m pretty sure they would exercise that power. They’d be stupid not to. The difference with an anarchist approach is that everyone would be directly engaged with decisions and policies at a local level (if they want to be), rather than just relying on a councillor or MP and hoping that they do something about it if they can be bothered.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27911518

So are labour now out- torying the Tories now on welfare?

Rachel Reeves must have choked on her morning cuppa!

The difference with an anarchist approach is that everyone would be directly engaged with decisions and policies at a local level (if they want to be), rather than just relying on a councillor or MP and hoping that they do something about it if they can be bothered.

Cough <localism> cough.

Yeah, I know it was just a sop to the proles…

So are labour now out- torying the Tories now on welfare?

[/quote]

🙄 You say as if it’s something new. Labour have been raking the gutter for Daily Mail votes since the launching of New Labour.

I’d disagree on that. Normal people can’t be arsed engaging with a system which gives them no power, which dismisses their concerns and promises them the earth every 5 years only to then renege on the promises. Add to that the blatant corruption and fiddling of those who claim to be representatives and it’s not surprising people can’t be arsed.

However, if you give people direct influence over interests they’re concerned about, whether that’s pot-holes in the road, dangerous driving, a new development being built near their house, local kids causing a nuisance etc, I’m pretty sure they would exercise that power. They’d be stupid not to. The difference with an anarchist approach is that everyone would be directly engaged with decisions and policies at a local level (if they want to be), rather than just relying on a councillor or MP and hoping that they do something about it if they can be bothered.

If you want to know what people power and small government looks like go to the Phillipines.

You’ll love it. The shanty towns, people with guns everywhere, corrupt local mayors/drug lords with too much power, jeeps turned into buses, makeshift roads, makeshift everything, homeless children running out in front of cars, fly tipping.

If you want to know what people power and small government looks like go to the Phillipines….

If you think that’s what I’m talking about then you haven’t understood (or are choosing not to). Don’t think I ever said you could simply switch systems. It would take years (probably decades) of careful planning, progression and evolution. It’s pretty obvious that if you simply remove centralised government without replacing it with something else then the more nefarious types in society would use it as an opportunity to help themselves.