The Greens are coming! Quick, panic!

Who here expects all election manifestos from the “mainstream” parties to be fulfilled in their entirety?

Would it not therefore be reasonable to assume the Greens will become somewhat more moderate or gentle in implementing the more contentious issues some of you assume will blow the economy out of the water?

Also as the Greens become somewhat more mainstream, surely there will be a loss of the more “loopy” characters, and perhaps a move to re-assess some of the more, unscientific, influence that the genuine sandal-wearing, motorway tunnelling actual tree hugging crusties used to express?

IMHO, it’d be a bit of a shame, but this seems likely to me.

Final point:

I don’t get it. Why is earning more money better?

I don’t get it. Why is earning more money better?

You might not get it, but it’s the reason why there are vast amounts of immigrants in this country.

http://mafhom.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/23-things-they-dont-tell-you-about-capitalism.pdf

Let’s have a further-educated debate 🙂

What’s failed? Capitalism? That thing that took Europe out of the dark ages

Ahh yes, the 13th century, that great paragon of unfettered global capitalism.

Ahh yes, the 13th century, that great paragon of unfettered global capitalism.

You’re assuming the 18th century was different to the 13th.

Doing the rounds at the mo..

Woman Realizes Her Customers Are Drunk And Unemployed.
Her Solution Is Genius

Mary is the proprietor of a bar in Dublin. She realizes that virtually all of her customers are unemployed alcoholics and, as such, can no longer afford to patronise her bar.
To solve this problem, she comes up with a new marketing plan that allows her customers to drink now, but pay later. She keeps track of the drinks consumed on a ledger (thereby granting the customers loans).

Word gets around about Mary’s “drink now, pay later” marketing strategy and, as a result, increasing numbers of customers flood into Mary’s bar. Soon she has the largest sales volume for any bar in Dublin.

By providing her customers freedom from immediate payment demands, Mary gets no resistance when, at regular intervals, she substantially increases her prices for wine and beer, the most consumed beverages. Consequently, Mary’s gross sales volume increases massively. A young and dynamic vice-president at the local bank recognizes that these customer debts constitute valuable future assets and increases Mary’s borrowing limit. He sees no reason for any undue concern, since he has the debts of the unemployed alcoholics as collateral.

At the bank’s corporate headquarters, expert traders figure a way to make huge commissions, and transform these customer loans into DRINKBONDS, ALKIBONDS and PUKEBONDS. These securities are then bundled and traded on international security markets. Naive investors don’t really understand that the securities being sold to them as AAA secured bonds are really the debts of unemployed alcoholics. Nevertheless, the bond prices continuously climb, and the securities soon become the hottest-selling items for some of the nation’s leading brokerage houses.

One day, even though the bond prices are still climbing, a risk manager at the original local bank decides that the time has come to demand payment on the debts incurred by the drinkers at Mary’s bar. He so informs Mary.

Mary then demands payment from her alcoholic patrons, but being unemployed alcoholics they cannot pay back their drinking debts. Since Mary cannot fulfill her loan obligations she is forced into bankruptcy. The bar closes and the eleven employees lose their jobs.

Overnight, DRINKBONDS, ALKIBONDS and PUKEBONDS drop in price by 90%. The collapsed bond asset value destroys the banks’ liquidity and prevents it from issuing new loans, thus freezing credit and economic activity in the community.

The suppliers of Mary’s bar had granted her generous payment extensions and had invested their firms’ pension funds in the various BOND securities. They find they are now faced with having to write off her bad debt and with losing over 90% of the presumed value of the bonds. Her wine supplier also claims bankruptcy, closing the doors on a family business that had endured for three generations, her beer supplier is taken over by a competitor, who immediately closes the local plant and lays off 150 workers.

Fortunately though, the bank, the brokerage houses and their respective executives are saved and bailed out by a multi-billion euro no-strings attached cash infusion from their cronies in Government. The funds required for this bailout are obtained by new taxes levied on employed, middle-class, non-drinkers who have never been in Mary’s bar.

Now, do you understand economics in 2015?

Wow… Every day a school day…. Is that off Facebook?? 😉

Anyone who thinks that the Greens’ manifesto is bonkers should go and have a read of the mainstream parties’ manifestos.

NW speaks much sense on this thread

it won’t. It will just put more pressure on the state sector as people stop paying the fee’s and schools close.

It wont really they just say this. No company/ trade organisation has ever said yes of course we could afford to pay tax or the minimum wage or holidays or maternity pay etc…..PS isnt the market perfect anyway so if they close its good news

funnily enough someone on the radio this morning commented that the reduction in people taking private health insurance in the recession had increased the pressure on the NHS

Was it not yesterday? Radio 4 anyway they did not offer any evidence to support it

Possible but untested and worthy of research

binners – Member
Nope. Sorry. Still not getting the whole centralisation thing at all there Wopster.

I’ll give you that one, binners.

I was ALMOST swayed by the “**** it, let’s just give them a go” argument, but…

I just can’t support the high tax and spend (a lot of which will be thrown at useless wiffle like windmills that won’t provide our energy needs) and the profound anti-technology stuff.

I’m all for nuclear power, fracking, and GM foods. Also, animal testing, until there’s something better.

There’s something profoundly Luddite at the core of the Green Party, so I think I’ll pass.

As far as the economy, I’ll stick with Osborne. The alternatives are too horrible to contemplate.

I’ll stick with Osborne. The alternatives are too horrible to contemplate

Our political system has come to this.

WTF.

Balls.

As far as the economy, I’ll stick with Osborne. The alternatives are too horrible to contemplate.

And is there a more profound example of the bankruptcy of our present economic and political system than that?

The Chicago School model of capitalism has nearly destroyed the economy. The solution? More of the same. But even more extreme this time. What could possibly go wrong?

And in the face of the abject failure of this model of neoliberal economics, nobody is proposing any alternative at all.

Oh…. apart from the Greens.

The Chicago School model of capitalism has nearly destroyed the economy

Odd. I hadn’t noticed that anybody was trying it. As was mentioned by someone else, even the Conservatives, who claim to champion Free Marker Capitalism, are actually in thrall to corporatism, shored up by the taxpayer when failing.

However, under Osborne, the economy IS growing at last, and the country’s debts reducing. If he achieves his aim of a surplus, the next decision will be how much to spend, and what on.

Agreed Wopster. The bank bailouts, and subsequent QE couldn’t have been more socialist unless they’d have quoted tractor production figures while doing it.

That doesn’t change the fact that all thats being proposed is more of the same. So lets have a look shall we

1. Unsustainable property bubble? Tick
2. Economic recovery* based on credit fuelled consumer spending on imported goods? Tick
3. An unreformed, and over-powerful banking sector, still ‘too big to fail’ serving its own interests, with barely a consideration for the ‘real’ economy? Tick

Like I said…. what could possibly go wrong? Its hardly surprising if a lot of people have had enough, and think its about time we gave something else a go

* The word is used figuratively in this instance

However, under Osborne, the economy IS growing at last, and the country’s debts reducing. If he achieves his aim of a surplus, the next decision will be how much to spend, and what on.

You mean that the interest on the country’s debt is being paid back?

Well I agree that there seems to be a head of “let’s just give something else a go” building up, but I don’t think that’s a good enough basis on which to vote. Especially in the case of the Greens, who just sound like a bunch of hopeless meddlers to me.

In an ideal world (hah!) we’d all get exactly what each of us wanted but as I hope we’ve all noticed by now, life ain’t like that.

Arranging for the economy to be run on Friedman’s or even Schumpeter’s ideas would meet so much resistance from entrenched corporate interests (to which any Government has to pander if it is to survive) that it would take a revolution as profound and probably bloody as the failed attempts at socialism/communism that the planet suffered in the last century, that nobody is willing to risk it. Hence the “semi-free market” model that Osborne is following.

I’d like to see us let the free market rip and make some real progress, but in the meantime, I’ll just go with it’s nearest copy which in 2015 in the UK is….

let’s not forget that Osborne’s economic recovery is also heavily dependent upon an interest rate of 0.5%.

how many people would be financially buggered if interest rates soared to the lofty heights of … say … a staggering 3%?

ie. it’s not really a recovery at all.

Mr Woppit – Member

Well I agree that there seems to be a head of “let’s just give something else a go” building up, but I don’t think that’s a good enough basis on which to vote. Especially in the case of the Greens…

Ffs. no-one who is thinking of voting for the greens actually thinks they’re going to win much if anything.

for many, it’s simply seen as an effective way of telling the other left-sympathetic parties that there are votes in environmental and social policies.

and, that broadly speaking, one wouldn’t mind a bit more tax if spending was increased on groovy things like social care, education, public transport, schools, environmental protection, etc.

I’d like to see us let the free market rip and make some real progress

Last time I went to the US the main memory I came back with was the dozens of severely mentally ill people roaming the streets because of the wonderful free-market health and social care system they have over there. Progress indeed.

However, under Osborne, the economy IS growing at last,

let’s not forget that Osborne’s economic recovery

Flippin”eck there’s some naivety here 😯
That a modern chancellor of a single nation decides whether the global economy is in boom or bust

quite.

if it needs to be said (and it does seem so), one was simply paraphrasing.

Mr Woppit – Member

the country’s debts reducing

If when you say “reducing” you actually meant “increasing” then yes, I quite agree.

Why does there need to be ‘growth’ at all? We (as a species) can’t go on consuming at the rate we have been and expect there to be much left for future generations. It’s perhaps time that we (as a species) started to think longer-term than the next payday/windfall/shareholder meeting.

How many anti-change/Green posters on here have to drive to work every morning, bumper to bumper, to a job they perhaps hate to pay for stuff they don’t need that was bought on credit?

I agree with the sentiment, but don’t we have to keep the economy growing because the population is ever increasing and getting younger

Ffs. no-one who is thinking of voting for the greens actually thinks they’re going to win much if anything.

There’s an “I’ll vote Green if you do” hashtag going around.

EDIT:

getting younger

Not in this neck of the woods:

The average age of the population in the UK has increased from 36 years in 1992 to 40 years in
2009

SOURCE

g5604 – Member

don’t we have to keep the economy growing because the population is ever increasing…

neither of those things are sustainable.

…and getting younger…

the population of the UK is getting older.

If when you say “reducing” you actually meant “increasing” then yes, I quite agree.

Excuse me. I meant “deficit” of course. As to the debt – well, we need a surplus so we can reduce it.

Why does there need to be ‘growth’ at all?

Because more people like having more stuff. I know I do.

I get dressed to go to work on my bicycle which is paid for in order to get to a job that I enjoy that pays for all the other stuff I’m interested in but not for the house because it’s mine.

But economic growth is just a concept, same as state/country borders and monarchies. Yes, I’ve gone a little hippy-dippy tin foil hat in my dotage, I know. Fortunately I’ll be dead in thirty or so years and we haven’t had kids so we can enjoy our time as temporary tenants on this pale blue dot trying to abide by Rule Number One*.

* Don’t be a ****. There are no other rules.

I get dressed to go to work on my bicycle which is paid for in order to get to a job that I enjoy that pays for all the other stuff I’m interested in but not for the house because it’s mine.

Sure- but this doesn’t mean it’s sustainable.

“The tragedy of the commons is a dilemma arising from the situation in which multiple individuals, acting independently and rationally consulting their own self-interest, will ultimately deplete a shared limited resource even when it is clear that it is not in anyone’s long-term interest for this to happen”

http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Tragedy_of_the_commons.html

Why does there need to be ‘growth’ at all? We (as a species) can’t go on consuming at the rate we have been and expect there to be much left for future generations. It’s perhaps time that we (as a species) started to think longer-term than the next payday/windfall/shareholder meeting.

One of my favourite quotes of recent times (especially when sat in company meetings where the main purpose of the company appears to be to “GROW! FASTER!”):

“Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell.” – Edward Abbey. Interesting guy.

I get dressed to go to work on my bicycle which is paid for in order to get to a job that I enjoy that pays for all the other stuff I’m interested in but not for the house because it’s mine.

* Other lifestyles are available* 🙂

Don’t be a ****. There are no other rules.

So does that mean you don’t want to screw up what you’ve had for others?

Pimpmaster Jazz- I think so, I don’t know if I’ve understood the wording of your question properly. I meant just try to be a good person, take what you need rather than everything you can get. If somebody needs help, try and give it without expecting reward or acclaim.

Just general clean-conscience (in my opinion, YMMV) sort of living.

The current policy is infinite (unevenly distributed) growth on a finite planet.

and if you question that then you’re a tree-hugging commie.

I think so, I don’t know if I’ve understood the wording of your question properly. I meant just try to be a good person, take what you need rather than everything you can get. If somebody needs help, try and give it without expecting reward or acclaim.

Just general clean-conscience (in my opinion, YMMV) sort of living.

Sounds like a decent way to live kayla1. I only asked because since becoming a parent I have started to look longer term – it’s not about me and what I can get anymore. A lot of politics (and attitudes?) in recent times seem to be catered toward the short term gain of the individual, which again is not terribly sustainable.

A lot of politics (and attitudes?) in recent times seem to be catered toward the short term gain of the individual, which again is not terribly sustainable.

We’re currently seeing that it’s not particularly sustainable in the short term – my kids are going to have very different economic circumstances to my parents.

and if you question that then you’re a tree-hugging commie.

😆