inactionman wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2023 10:46 am
This is very tangentially related to the current discussion and is more of an aside, but please bear with me.
I watched the original James Caan Rollerball last night, which is one of a set of 70s flicks that amazon seem to have dug out of the archives.
I hadn't realised that its central theme is about the ceding of power to corporations, the control these corporations exert on people and everyday society, and the way lives and liberty are secondary to the success of the corporation. Interesting that it was made in 1975 - it's an old and ongoing concern.
I feel a bit of a dumbarse, I'm watching rollerball and socks is reading Naomi Klein.
Funnily enough the 70s is where Klein suggests Friedman and his followers first started to get their hooks into policy makers and start the process of eroding the supposed market interference of the New Deal.
Also, you're fine. In addition to Klein I'm also going back through the Hellboy comics. We can all be high and low brow.
Agree on the high and low brow - it's all good.
Regarding your first point, there is an interesting conversation between Jon Stewart and Ian Hislop on YouTube, at one point Stewart talks about the action taken by the conservatives after Nixon was found out, they set up structures in academia, in think tanks and in the media to drive their own narrative, a guy called Roger Ailes who had worked with Reagan and Bush Snr eventually became CEO of Fox News
The part should come up on a time stamp here
I've watched that interview before, illuminating and scary. It's useful to have guys like this outside of the system trying to hold feet to the fire, but they're really the sort of characters who you'd like to see in positions of power trying to implement beneficial policy rather than those who do exist inside politics doing the bidding lobbyists.
Re: Stop voting for fucking Tories
Posted: Fri Sep 15, 2023 2:09 pm
by Line6 HXFX
sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2023 10:35 am
I'm reading Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein at the moment, it's illuminating to learn about Milton Friedman* and the Chicago School of absolutist free-marketerism.
The version of capitalism we have at the moment certainly seems like one that's running to that credo and is slowly but surely kicking 'impediments' like regulations and rights out of its way in the pursuit of 'pure' capitalism. It's acolytes would certainly reject any idea that the version they're aiming for is polluted by greed.
* He comes across as a frankly evil and immoral man.
When he died, he was completely ashamed of his ideas and the abject pain and misery they caused, and wanted the world to remember the work he did for the scouts of America, instead of his lifelong career and economic ideas.
Says it all really..
The shitty, cunty tory politicians who adopted his ideas and inflicted all that monatarist misery on the otherhand, demand to be deified and worshipped.
Re: Stop voting for fucking Tories
Posted: Fri Sep 15, 2023 2:35 pm
by Rhubarb & Custard
dpedin wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2023 12:27 pm
The resistance is significant but it is recognition that capitalism got out of control and began to kill people by pricing them out of drugs and healthcare.
See again I think that's about greed, not capitalism. Capitalism would given much greater consideration to the effective/rational deployment of free labour in the market economy than the providers of private health coverage. So if you were to ask Capitalism it would be for much more action on preventative measures, and much better and cheaper access earlier in disease then expensive and more limited emergency driven treatments. Not because Capitalism is for the good, only because it's a more efficient way to generate profits in the round
So it's not about capitalism getting out of control, or at least we should be understanding it is, and perhaps can only ever be an irrational capitalistic structure, and thus it'd be insane not to want strong regulations
Re: Stop voting for fucking Tories
Posted: Fri Sep 15, 2023 2:43 pm
by weegie01
inactionman wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2023 12:27 pm
The bolded bit gave me pause; is that always true?
If we make a certain new drug illegal, for example, do we recompense anyone in possession of the drug who presumably lawfully acquired it before the prohibition? On the other hand, I seem to recall there was a compensation scheme for gunowners after Dunblane.
I always assumed that the compensation paid to slave owners was more about making the legislation palatable to slaveowners - who were most likely the key voters (noting it included MPs) and influencers in the early 1800s - than for any reason of propriety. More a tactical necessity. I stress that's my assumption.
Pretty much. There will always be exceptions. For example a certain herbicide I used was made illegal. I could not buy any more, and had to use my existing stocks before a certain date or bin it. There are circumstances in which the state can deprive an individual of property (proceeds of crime, emergency legislation in case of war etc), but as a general rule the state cannot deprive an individual of legally acquired assets without paying just compensation.
There is no doubt there was expediency in the slavery compensation. Without the compensation slavery would almost certainly be made illegal eventually, but it would take much longer as turkeys were being asked to vote for Christmas.
Re: Stop voting for fucking Tories
Posted: Fri Sep 15, 2023 3:45 pm
by Tichtheid
weegie01 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2023 12:16 pm
Respect for the laws of property is fundamental to the effective functioning of an economy. We may not like the fact that people legally owned slaves, but in legal terms depriving people of their slaves without compensation would be no different from depriving them of any other legally acquired asset without compensation.
I wince when I see views like that, not only for the normalising of slavery, it ignores the fact that for centuries the constituent parts of the UK have seen laws passed that took away common lands and put them in the hands of landlords, the Inclosure Acts and Scotland's Clearances were legal, aye, but people who were hunting for their own food became poachers and thieves, just because of these laws. In the case of the Clearances it was the biggest betrayal of the way of life imaginable to those who were forcibly removed from their homes.
I'm being necessarily brief here, this is a huge topic.
weegie01 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2023 12:16 pm
Respect for the laws of property is fundamental to the effective functioning of an economy. We may not like the fact that people legally owned slaves, but in legal terms depriving people of their slaves without compensation would be no different from depriving them of any other legally acquired asset without compensation.
I wince when I see views like that, not only for the normalising of slavery, it ignores the fact that for centuries the constituent parts of the UK have seen laws passed that took away common lands and put them in the hands of landlords, the Inclosure Acts and Scotland's Clearances were legal, aye, but people who were hunting for their own food became poachers and thieves, just because of these laws. In the case of the Clearances it was the biggest betrayal of the way of life imaginable to those who were forcibly removed from their homes.
I'm being necessarily brief here, this is a huge topic.
The point is that slavery was normal. Slavery was normal for as far back as human history goes, and existed in every continent. It is only to modern eyes that we look on slavery as an abnormal and aberrant state.
I am not defending slavery, but it and the events surrounding its demise has to be looked at through a lens of the times, not a modern one. Included in that is that, in previous times, there were many other systems under which people lived that were miserable in many ways, and in which rights were tenuous, so slavery was not the extreme outlier we see it as today. As conditions and rights in other systems improved, slavery became more and more of an outlier until the point was reached that the weight of opinion moved against it.
weegie01 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2023 12:16 pm
Respect for the laws of property is fundamental to the effective functioning of an economy. We may not like the fact that people legally owned slaves, but in legal terms depriving people of their slaves without compensation would be no different from depriving them of any other legally acquired asset without compensation.
I wince when I see views like that, not only for the normalising of slavery, it ignores the fact that for centuries the constituent parts of the UK have seen laws passed that took away common lands and put them in the hands of landlords, the Inclosure Acts and Scotland's Clearances were legal, aye, but people who were hunting for their own food became poachers and thieves, just because of these laws. In the case of the Clearances it was the biggest betrayal of the way of life imaginable to those who were forcibly removed from their homes.
I'm being necessarily brief here, this is a huge topic.
The point is that slavery was normal. Slavery was normal for as far back as human history goes, and existed in every continent. It is only to modern eyes that we look on slavery as an abnormal and aberrant state.
I am not defending slavery, but it and the events surrounding its demise has to be looked at through a lens of the times, not a modern one. Included in that is that, in previous times, there were many other systems under which people lived that were miserable in many ways, and in which rights were tenuous, so slavery was not the extreme outlier we see it as today. As conditions and rights in other systems improved, slavery became more and more of an outlier until the point was reached that the weight of opinion moved against it.
I'm watching the ABs game so I'll be quick, but I think you'll find the weight of opinion of the slaves were somewhat different to the views you reference
You would wonder if Boris is a Russian sleeper trying to bring down English institutions one by one. The honours system was already on life support but utterly laughable now
I've never heard Boris was a Russian sleeper, Carrie sure, but not Boris
Re: Stop voting for fucking Tories
Posted: Sat Sep 16, 2023 7:22 am
by tabascoboy
We live in a Murdochracy now?
The Daily Telegraph says Rishi Sunak drafted a resignation statement when he was fined last year for breaching lockdown rules - but was talked out of quitting as chancellor. The paper is serialising a book by its political editor Ben Riley-Smith. In it, he says executives at Rupert Murdoch's NewsCorp were instrumental in convincing Mr Sunak to stay on. The paper promises the book will "unpack how Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak's relationship deteriorated to the point of destruction". A spokeswoman for News UK declined to comment.
weegie01 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2023 12:16 pm
Respect for the laws of property is fundamental to the effective functioning of an economy. We may not like the fact that people legally owned slaves, but in legal terms depriving people of their slaves without compensation would be no different from depriving them of any other legally acquired asset without compensation.
I wince when I see views like that, not only for the normalising of slavery, it ignores the fact that for centuries the constituent parts of the UK have seen laws passed that took away common lands and put them in the hands of landlords, the Inclosure Acts and Scotland's Clearances were legal, aye, but people who were hunting for their own food became poachers and thieves, just because of these laws. In the case of the Clearances it was the biggest betrayal of the way of life imaginable to those who were forcibly removed from their homes.
I'm being necessarily brief here, this is a huge topic.
The point is that slavery was normal. Slavery was normal for as far back as human history goes, and existed in every continent. It is only to modern eyes that we look on slavery as an abnormal and aberrant state.
I am not defending slavery, but it and the events surrounding its demise has to be looked at through a lens of the times, not a modern one. Included in that is that, in previous times, there were many other systems under which people lived that were miserable in many ways, and in which rights were tenuous, so slavery was not the extreme outlier we see it as today. As conditions and rights in other systems improved, slavery became more and more of an outlier until the point was reached that the weight of opinion moved against it.
Common ownership of, or access to, land was normal. But that change was treated entirely differently. Why do you think that was?
Re: Stop voting for fucking Tories
Posted: Sat Sep 16, 2023 9:15 am
by weegie01
Tichtheid wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2023 8:34 pmI'm watching the ABs game so I'll be quick, but I think you'll find the weight of opinion of the slaves were somewhat different to the views you reference.
No one in history has been happy about being at the bottom of the pile in whatever societal structure they are in. That does not mean society as a whole did not accept that the structure was normal, valid or whatever term you want to use. The British chose to abolish slavery, at considerable cost to themselves, when societal attitudes had developed to a point where the exploitation of others in general was no longer as acceptable as it had once been. That rendered slavery, as one of the most extreme forms of exploitation, unacceptable to society as a whole.
Re: Stop voting for fucking Tories
Posted: Sat Sep 16, 2023 9:41 am
by weegie01
Biffer wrote: ↑Sat Sep 16, 2023 9:01 amCommon ownership of, or access to, land was normal. But that change was treated entirely differently. Why do you think that was?
Because it was entirely different. One deprived individuals of legally acquired, identifiable assets. The other, to make a sweeping genralisation, allocated assets that did not have a legally identified owner to owners.
You would wonder if Boris is a Russian sleeper trying to bring down English institutions one by one. The honours system was already on life support but utterly laughable now
I've never heard Boris was a Russian sleeper, Carrie sure, but not Boris
Tbf he is quite a base man. I think it's clear from that article that my initial suspicions that he was riding her are probably right. The father thing always seemed bollox. Occam's razor applies
She does look similar to Boris, and in this either way he's slept with someone he frankly should't have
dpedin wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2023 12:27 pm
The resistance is significant but it is recognition that capitalism got out of control and began to kill people by pricing them out of drugs and healthcare.
See again I think that's about greed, not capitalism. Capitalism would given much greater consideration to the effective/rational deployment of free labour in the market economy than the providers of private health coverage. So if you were to ask Capitalism it would be for much more action on preventative measures, and much better and cheaper access earlier in disease then expensive and more limited emergency driven treatments. Not because Capitalism is for the good, only because it's a more efficient way to generate profits in the round
So it's not about capitalism getting out of control, or at least we should be understanding it is, and perhaps can only ever be an irrational capitalistic structure, and thus it'd be insane not to want strong regulations
Theoretically I can see your argument from a purely rational and economic sense but, in the real world the pursuit of profit by individuals and big companies, capitalism and greed become intertwined and one and the same thing. Maximising profits and accumulating wealth becomes an all powerful 'drug' and is used as a rational, albeit flawed, to overcome any and all moral barriers. The Sackler family via their Purdue company pushing Oxycontin is a classic example of this. Turn a blind eye, blame the management process or claim the reality was kept from them. Even when caught and found guilty they managed to salt away $11b of dollars from their company before dissolving Purdue and leaving $6b to cover the cost of all the damage and 1,000s of deaths they caused. This is the true face of capitalism.
It has always been thus - the US car industry was notorious in the post war period for placing profit ahead of safety of the drivers and passengers - read Nader or the case of the Ford Pinto and the exploding fuel tanks and the cost benefit analysis produced by Ford.
When Gov becomes an extension of big businesses then those who suffer are the wider population and in particular the poor, the weak, the infirm, those on the margin and just the plain unlucky. Their pursuit of profit drives them to pressure Gov to minimise or get rid of protections such as regulations, the law, etc. Reducing red tape and EU interference was one of the drivers of Brexit and we now see what that means - shit in rivers and on beaches, higher power costs, weaker regulation on use of chemicals and pesticides, etc. Oh and bigger profits for big companies.
dpedin wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2023 12:27 pm
The resistance is significant but it is recognition that capitalism got out of control and began to kill people by pricing them out of drugs and healthcare.
See again I think that's about greed, not capitalism. Capitalism would given much greater consideration to the effective/rational deployment of free labour in the market economy than the providers of private health coverage. So if you were to ask Capitalism it would be for much more action on preventative measures, and much better and cheaper access earlier in disease then expensive and more limited emergency driven treatments. Not because Capitalism is for the good, only because it's a more efficient way to generate profits in the round
So it's not about capitalism getting out of control, or at least we should be understanding it is, and perhaps can only ever be an irrational capitalistic structure, and thus it'd be insane not to want strong regulations
Theoretically I can see your argument from a purely rational and economic sense but, in the real world the pursuit of profit by individuals and big companies, capitalism and greed become intertwined and one and the same thing. Maximising profits and accumulating wealth becomes an all powerful 'drug' and is used as a rational, albeit flawed, to overcome any and all moral barriers. The Sackler family via their Purdue company pushing Oxycontin is a classic example of this. Turn a blind eye, blame the management process or claim the reality was kept from them. Even when caught and found guilty they managed to salt away $11b of dollars from their company before dissolving Purdue and leaving $6b to cover the cost of all the damage and 1,000s of deaths they caused. This is the true face of capitalism.
It has always been thus - the US car industry was notorious in the post war period for placing profit ahead of safety of the drivers and passengers - read Nader or the case of the Ford Pinto and the exploding fuel tanks and the cost benefit analysis produced by Ford.
When Gov becomes an extension of big businesses then those who suffer are the wider population and in particular the poor, the weak, the infirm, those on the margin and just the plain unlucky. Their pursuit of profit drives them to pressure Gov to minimise or get rid of protections such as regulations, the law, etc. Reducing red tape and EU interference was one of the drivers of Brexit and we now see what that means - shit in rivers and on beaches, higher power costs, weaker regulation on use of chemicals and pesticides, etc. Oh and bigger profits for big companies.
It's not really the pursuit of profit, it's the pursuit of profit by some people in entitled positions that actually limits profit across society. And that's not quite the same thing, and there's little point blaming capitalism for it, because that complaint is rather missing the point.
Capitalism is the the rational pursuit of profit, once it's distorted (as in practice it must surely be) it's often the distorting factors not capitalism that should be the target.
All of which I say with the belief capitalism can never work because you need everyone to behave with integrity and for everyone to be a rational actor. And I'm not sold anyway that pursuit of profit is the best idea given much more modern thinking on consumption and sustainability.
And I'm also wondering why I'm so strongly recalling a well know essay on the protestant ethic in all this, seemingly some have take the wrong meaning from die protestantische ethik
Tichtheid wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2023 8:34 pmI'm watching the ABs game so I'll be quick, but I think you'll find the weight of opinion of the slaves were somewhat different to the views you reference.
No one in history has been happy about being at the bottom of the pile in whatever societal structure they are in. That does not mean society as a whole did not accept that the structure was normal, valid or whatever term you want to use. The British chose to abolish slavery, at considerable cost to themselves, when societal attitudes had developed to a point where the exploitation of others in general was no longer as acceptable as it had once been. That rendered slavery, as one of the most extreme forms of exploitation, unacceptable to society as a whole.
I guess of all possible responses to the ending of slavery, moral relativism was the one I expected least.
I mentioned those events purely to show that the capitalist profit motive supersedes all other considerations and to emphasise that it only gives up some of that profit to inconvenient practices such as a living wage and the right to work in a safe environment when it is restrained and challenged, it never cedes ground of its own volition.
Tichtheid wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2023 8:34 pmI'm watching the ABs game so I'll be quick, but I think you'll find the weight of opinion of the slaves were somewhat different to the views you reference.
No one in history has been happy about being at the bottom of the pile in whatever societal structure they are in. That does not mean society as a whole did not accept that the structure was normal, valid or whatever term you want to use. The British chose to abolish slavery, at considerable cost to themselves, when societal attitudes had developed to a point where the exploitation of others in general was no longer as acceptable as it had once been. That rendered slavery, as one of the most extreme forms of exploitation, unacceptable to society as a whole.
I guess of all possible responses to the ending of slavery, moral relativism was the one I expected least.
I mentioned those events purely to show that the capitalist profit motive supersedes all other considerations and to emphasise that it only gives up some of that profit to inconvenient practices such as a living wage and the right to work in a safe environment when it is restrained and challenged, it never cedes ground of its own volition.
See that's drivel. Capitalism has proved very much in favour of free labour (labour being free to move that is not unpaid), it being useful to determine rational profits. Your objection to those pulling the levers abjuring practices such as living wages and safe environments isn't an objection to capitalism, at least (and I keep coming back to this point) not rational capitalism.
By all means object to the irrationality and cite the need for regulation, but direct the ire where it belongs
No one in history has been happy about being at the bottom of the pile in whatever societal structure they are in. That does not mean society as a whole did not accept that the structure was normal, valid or whatever term you want to use. The British chose to abolish slavery, at considerable cost to themselves, when societal attitudes had developed to a point where the exploitation of others in general was no longer as acceptable as it had once been. That rendered slavery, as one of the most extreme forms of exploitation, unacceptable to society as a whole.
I guess of all possible responses to the ending of slavery, moral relativism was the one I expected least.
I mentioned those events purely to show that the capitalist profit motive supersedes all other considerations and to emphasise that it only gives up some of that profit to inconvenient practices such as a living wage and the right to work in a safe environment when it is restrained and challenged, it never cedes ground of its own volition.
See that's drivel. Capitalism has proved very much in favour of free labour (labour being free to move that is not unpaid), it being useful to determine rational profits. Your objection to those pulling the levers abjuring practices such as living wages and safe environments isn't an objection to capitalism, at least (and I keep coming back to this point) not rational capitalism.
By all means object to the irrationality and cite the need for regulation, but direct the ire where it belongs
Okay then, if it’s drivel I assume you’ll be able to provide a long list of improvements throughout history in wages, terms of employment, sick pay, holiday, allowance, health and safety, relative security of employment etc that were offered by employers without being asked for.
Presumably trade unions were formed as friendship groups if they had no other reason to exist.
Re: Stop voting for fucking Tories
Posted: Sat Sep 16, 2023 12:33 pm
by weegie01
Tichtheid wrote: ↑Sat Sep 16, 2023 11:22 amI guess of all possible responses to the ending of slavery, moral relativism was the one I expected least.
Why do you think slavery became unacceptable after thousands of years of practice? Did society just wake up one morning and decide it had changed its mind, or did other things change, in the context of which previously acceptable practices no longer were? At around the same time child labour was being banned in the UK, health and safety in factories started being enforced, the HSE was founded etc. Broadly speaking, UK attitudes to all forms of exploitation were changing and the UK started taking a more enlightened view of exploitation and individual rights. I don't see what is controversial about saying that attitudes to slavery was part of that, and that is a context relevant to the abolition of slavery.
I guess of all possible responses to the ending of slavery, moral relativism was the one I expected least.
I mentioned those events purely to show that the capitalist profit motive supersedes all other considerations and to emphasise that it only gives up some of that profit to inconvenient practices such as a living wage and the right to work in a safe environment when it is restrained and challenged, it never cedes ground of its own volition.
See that's drivel. Capitalism has proved very much in favour of free labour (labour being free to move that is not unpaid), it being useful to determine rational profits. Your objection to those pulling the levers abjuring practices such as living wages and safe environments isn't an objection to capitalism, at least (and I keep coming back to this point) not rational capitalism.
By all means object to the irrationality and cite the need for regulation, but direct the ire where it belongs
Okay then, if it’s drivel I assume you’ll be able to provide a long list of improvements throughout history in wages, terms of employment, sick pay, holiday, allowance, health and safety, relative security of employment etc that were offered by employers without being asked for.
Presumably trade unions were formed as friendship groups if they had no other reason to exist.
Not like we don't have our free labour in our economy. I wonder what the value is of all those grandparents looking after their grandchildren while both parents work.
I guess of all possible responses to the ending of slavery, moral relativism was the one I expected least.
I mentioned those events purely to show that the capitalist profit motive supersedes all other considerations and to emphasise that it only gives up some of that profit to inconvenient practices such as a living wage and the right to work in a safe environment when it is restrained and challenged, it never cedes ground of its own volition.
See that's drivel. Capitalism has proved very much in favour of free labour (labour being free to move that is not unpaid), it being useful to determine rational profits. Your objection to those pulling the levers abjuring practices such as living wages and safe environments isn't an objection to capitalism, at least (and I keep coming back to this point) not rational capitalism.
By all means object to the irrationality and cite the need for regulation, but direct the ire where it belongs
Okay then, if it’s drivel I assume you’ll be able to provide a long list of improvements throughout history in wages, terms of employment, sick pay, holiday, allowance, health and safety, relative security of employment etc that were offered by employers without being asked for.
Presumably trade unions were formed as friendship groups if they had no other reason to exist.
The only significant examples I can think of are the Quakers and those of a similar ilk, but the ethical behaviours were drawn from a theology and belief.
New Lanark is an interesting day out. The museum don't really go into the owners' motivations - its more about the experiences of the people who worked there. However, I'm always left with a feeling Robert Owen invested in facilities for workers with half an eye on ensuring a fit, healthy, stable and ultimately reliable workforce for the mills.
Re: Stop voting for fucking Tories
Posted: Sat Sep 16, 2023 12:50 pm
by lemonhead
Never thought I'd see the day but better late than forever.
I guess of all possible responses to the ending of slavery, moral relativism was the one I expected least.
I mentioned those events purely to show that the capitalist profit motive supersedes all other considerations and to emphasise that it only gives up some of that profit to inconvenient practices such as a living wage and the right to work in a safe environment when it is restrained and challenged, it never cedes ground of its own volition.
See that's drivel. Capitalism has proved very much in favour of free labour (labour being free to move that is not unpaid), it being useful to determine rational profits. Your objection to those pulling the levers abjuring practices such as living wages and safe environments isn't an objection to capitalism, at least (and I keep coming back to this point) not rational capitalism.
By all means object to the irrationality and cite the need for regulation, but direct the ire where it belongs
Okay then, if it’s drivel I assume you’ll be able to provide a long list of improvements throughout history in wages, terms of employment, sick pay, holiday, allowance, health and safety, relative security of employment etc that were offered by employers without being asked for.
Presumably trade unions were formed as friendship groups if they had no other reason to exist.
Lobbying can run alongside. And I'm not suggesting all in the economy is rosy, nor it should simply be left to capitalism. Merely, being able to price cost of labour from a free pool of labour is a boon to capitalism not a burden. Capitalism simply isn't going to object to higher rates of productivity, such as one might find in a happier workforce. And this should be self-evident because one simply cannot point to a system that makes more for more than in what we consider the more capitalistic nations, particularly of the Occidental variety (as a tribute to lectures on protestant ethic)
And I'm all up for taking a swipe at capitalism on the grounds that profit should't be the end all. I'm just also of the view that irrational actions being attributed to capitalism rather muddies the waters, and allows that which should more clearly be the target to escape what should be greater focus. One does need regulation because actors aren't all rational, one does need to understand not all markets are free and open, say for instance power companies in the UK, and even what passes for free often needs actions to break up corporate interests because of restrictive practices monopolies being one such obvious target, in say telecoms, social media, banking...
See that's drivel. Capitalism has proved very much in favour of free labour (labour being free to move that is not unpaid), it being useful to determine rational profits. Your objection to those pulling the levers abjuring practices such as living wages and safe environments isn't an objection to capitalism, at least (and I keep coming back to this point) not rational capitalism.
By all means object to the irrationality and cite the need for regulation, but direct the ire where it belongs
Okay then, if it’s drivel I assume you’ll be able to provide a long list of improvements throughout history in wages, terms of employment, sick pay, holiday, allowance, health and safety, relative security of employment etc that were offered by employers without being asked for.
Presumably trade unions were formed as friendship groups if they had no other reason to exist.
Lobbying can run alongside. And I'm not suggesting all in the economy is rosy, nor it should simply be left to capitalism. Merely, being able to price cost of labour from a free pool of labour is a boon to capitalism not a burden. Capitalism simply isn't going to object to higher rates of productivity, such as one might find in a happier workforce. And this should be self-evident because one simply cannot point to a system that makes more for more than in what we consider the more capitalistic nations, particularly of the Occidental variety (as a tribute to lectures on protestant ethic)
And I'm all up for taking a swipe at capitalism on the grounds that profit should't be the end all. I'm just also of the view that irrational actions being attributed to capitalism rather muddies the waters, and allows that which should more clearly be the target to escape what should be greater focus. One does need regulation because actors aren't all rational, one does need to understand not all markets are free and open, say for instance power companies in the UK, and even what passes for free often needs actions to break up corporate interests because of restrictive practices monopolies being one such obvious target, in say telecoms, social media, banking...
Rationally then, if there is an unlimited supply of labour, as the slave trade was at the time, then the capitalists did a quick cost benefit analysis and decided that keeping them in shitty living conditions and working them till they died and then sending another boat to load up with more was cheaper than looking after them and even paying them as free people. The Aussie twat who triggered this debate was essentially saying the same thing - keep unemployment higher so we can lower wages and treat employees as shit and lower benefits in order to maintain higher profits and return on capital. Simple supply and demand in order to control prices. Ditto US car companies deciding it was cheaper to fight claims in court for people who died or were maimed in cars with serious safety defects than it was to recall or redesign models that meant they cost more. Capitalism unbridled is a disaster for societies and it isn't just one or two irrational actors, they are just the stupid ones who say this out loud! It is ingrained into most major large corporations where the pursuit of profit, bonuses, share price, etc leads sensible people to do the most stupid and heinous things and disregard the impact on wider society.
Okay then, if it’s drivel I assume you’ll be able to provide a long list of improvements throughout history in wages, terms of employment, sick pay, holiday, allowance, health and safety, relative security of employment etc that were offered by employers without being asked for.
Presumably trade unions were formed as friendship groups if they had no other reason to exist.
Lobbying can run alongside. And I'm not suggesting all in the economy is rosy, nor it should simply be left to capitalism. Merely, being able to price cost of labour from a free pool of labour is a boon to capitalism not a burden. Capitalism simply isn't going to object to higher rates of productivity, such as one might find in a happier workforce. And this should be self-evident because one simply cannot point to a system that makes more for more than in what we consider the more capitalistic nations, particularly of the Occidental variety (as a tribute to lectures on protestant ethic)
And I'm all up for taking a swipe at capitalism on the grounds that profit should't be the end all. I'm just also of the view that irrational actions being attributed to capitalism rather muddies the waters, and allows that which should more clearly be the target to escape what should be greater focus. One does need regulation because actors aren't all rational, one does need to understand not all markets are free and open, say for instance power companies in the UK, and even what passes for free often needs actions to break up corporate interests because of restrictive practices monopolies being one such obvious target, in say telecoms, social media, banking...
Rationally then, if there is an unlimited supply of labour, as the slave trade was at the time, then the capitalists did a quick cost benefit analysis and decided that keeping them in shitty living conditions and working them till they died and then sending another boat to load up with more was cheaper than looking after them and even paying them as free people. The Aussie twat who triggered this debate was essentially saying the same thing - keep unemployment higher so we can lower wages and treat employees as shit and lower benefits in order to maintain higher profits and return on capital. Simple supply and demand in order to control prices. Ditto US car companies deciding it was cheaper to fight claims in court for people who died or were maimed in cars with serious safety defects than it was to recall or redesign models that meant they cost more. Capitalism unbridled is a disaster for societies and it isn't just one or two irrational actors, they are just the stupid ones who say this out loud! It is ingrained into most major large corporations where the pursuit of profit, bonuses, share price, etc leads sensible people to do the most stupid and heinous things and disregard the impact on wider society.
Who do you think the capitalists were before capitalism as we came to recognise it in the Occident? Would you even consider it was a thing in terms of a system wide concept? Because whilst in every system always people pursue their own agenda to capture what resources they can it often didn't as such have profit at the heart of the planning in advance
Mostly these things were run out of the home. Whereas the capitalism as we know it built on the back of shifts in social thinking, technological developments, private businesses which is to say distinguishable from the home, and the notion of accounting for the cost of labour from a pool of free labour.
It's not like it was better pre capitalism with a system that derived profits based on some feudal model, perhaps even one that entailed slavery (allowing there is some difference between say slavery and serfdom)
And it's the disastrous capitalist system which has driven the changes that now see most of the people (in the Occident) be considered somewhere in the middles classes, clearly many would think there's both the room for and need for much more improvement again, but it'd be silly to overlook change has been delivered in spectacular style, and in a way that hasn't been bettered (not even close) by any other system
Re: Stop voting for fucking Tories
Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2023 1:19 pm
by fishfoodie
Why amn’t I surprised that that intellectual black hole, Cleverly, suggesting the Entertainment industry needs to get its house in order, re sexual harassment/assault ?
Maybe he should have a look at the percentages there versus his own chosen profession before he starts throwing stones ? Fucking moron.
Re: Stop voting for fucking Tories
Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2023 7:54 am
by Line6 HXFX
I mean the boom of the eighties was basically brought about by the selling off of public services, and exploiting anomalies in the markets, that if you make lots of people redundant, the share price goes up quite a bit (as its called efficiency savings).
So human misery.
Growth during the 90s and 2000s was about the exploitation cheap foriegn labour, and the banks giving everyone who could suck in air loans, and the crazy stupid boom bust housing market.
All of these things we (and future generations ) pay for and will be paying massively for.
Now we have nothing to sell off, nobody wants a loan, cheap foriegn construction and agricultural workers are not bothering to show up, we only have our organs left to sell. The free market capitalist pyramid scheme has collapsed. Only people like Liz Truss believe in it.
Time for another world war.
History has shown the wealthy would much rather kill all the working classes, by setting them against each other... than admit defeat and give them socialist government (that threaten their wealth).
Your lives mean less than shit to these people.
Rory Stewart had to deny (he voluntarily brought this up out of the blue yesterday) that tories are not "all" genicidal maniacs, and that they don't actually sit around all day and plan how to kill poor people, when it seriously looks like (this being the net results of them in power) that's all they f'king do.
Lobbying can run alongside. And I'm not suggesting all in the economy is rosy, nor it should simply be left to capitalism. Merely, being able to price cost of labour from a free pool of labour is a boon to capitalism not a burden. Capitalism simply isn't going to object to higher rates of productivity, such as one might find in a happier workforce. And this should be self-evident because one simply cannot point to a system that makes more for more than in what we consider the more capitalistic nations, particularly of the Occidental variety (as a tribute to lectures on protestant ethic)
And I'm all up for taking a swipe at capitalism on the grounds that profit should't be the end all. I'm just also of the view that irrational actions being attributed to capitalism rather muddies the waters, and allows that which should more clearly be the target to escape what should be greater focus. One does need regulation because actors aren't all rational, one does need to understand not all markets are free and open, say for instance power companies in the UK, and even what passes for free often needs actions to break up corporate interests because of restrictive practices monopolies being one such obvious target, in say telecoms, social media, banking...
Rationally then, if there is an unlimited supply of labour, as the slave trade was at the time, then the capitalists did a quick cost benefit analysis and decided that keeping them in shitty living conditions and working them till they died and then sending another boat to load up with more was cheaper than looking after them and even paying them as free people. The Aussie twat who triggered this debate was essentially saying the same thing - keep unemployment higher so we can lower wages and treat employees as shit and lower benefits in order to maintain higher profits and return on capital. Simple supply and demand in order to control prices. Ditto US car companies deciding it was cheaper to fight claims in court for people who died or were maimed in cars with serious safety defects than it was to recall or redesign models that meant they cost more. Capitalism unbridled is a disaster for societies and it isn't just one or two irrational actors, they are just the stupid ones who say this out loud! It is ingrained into most major large corporations where the pursuit of profit, bonuses, share price, etc leads sensible people to do the most stupid and heinous things and disregard the impact on wider society.
Who do you think the capitalists were before capitalism as we came to recognise it in the Occident? Would you even consider it was a thing in terms of a system wide concept? Because whilst in every system always people pursue their own agenda to capture what resources they can it often didn't as such have profit at the heart of the planning in advance
Mostly these things were run out of the home. Whereas the capitalism as we know it built on the back of shifts in social thinking, technological developments, private businesses which is to say distinguishable from the home, and the notion of accounting for the cost of labour from a pool of free labour.
It's not like it was better pre capitalism with a system that derived profits based on some feudal model, perhaps even one that entailed slavery (allowing there is some difference between say slavery and serfdom)
And it's the disastrous capitalist system which has driven the changes that now see most of the people (in the Occident) be considered somewhere in the middles classes, clearly many would think there's both the room for and need for much more improvement again, but it'd be silly to overlook change has been delivered in spectacular style, and in a way that hasn't been bettered (not even close) by any other system
Rationally then, if there is an unlimited supply of labour, as the slave trade was at the time, then the capitalists did a quick cost benefit analysis and decided that keeping them in shitty living conditions and working them till they died and then sending another boat to load up with more was cheaper than looking after them and even paying them as free people. The Aussie twat who triggered this debate was essentially saying the same thing - keep unemployment higher so we can lower wages and treat employees as shit and lower benefits in order to maintain higher profits and return on capital. Simple supply and demand in order to control prices. Ditto US car companies deciding it was cheaper to fight claims in court for people who died or were maimed in cars with serious safety defects than it was to recall or redesign models that meant they cost more. Capitalism unbridled is a disaster for societies and it isn't just one or two irrational actors, they are just the stupid ones who say this out loud! It is ingrained into most major large corporations where the pursuit of profit, bonuses, share price, etc leads sensible people to do the most stupid and heinous things and disregard the impact on wider society.
Who do you think the capitalists were before capitalism as we came to recognise it in the Occident? Would you even consider it was a thing in terms of a system wide concept? Because whilst in every system always people pursue their own agenda to capture what resources they can it often didn't as such have profit at the heart of the planning in advance
Mostly these things were run out of the home. Whereas the capitalism as we know it built on the back of shifts in social thinking, technological developments, private businesses which is to say distinguishable from the home, and the notion of accounting for the cost of labour from a pool of free labour.
It's not like it was better pre capitalism with a system that derived profits based on some feudal model, perhaps even one that entailed slavery (allowing there is some difference between say slavery and serfdom)
And it's the disastrous capitalist system which has driven the changes that now see most of the people (in the Occident) be considered somewhere in the middles classes, clearly many would think there's both the room for and need for much more improvement again, but it'd be silly to overlook change has been delivered in spectacular style, and in a way that hasn't been bettered (not even close) by any other system
I honestly dont know where to start with this!
Some basic understanding of what capitalism is would help. Because too many of the complaints are related to greed in a system that leans towards some notion of capitalism and run contrary to what capitalism would want
Re: Stop voting for fucking Tories
Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2023 9:58 am
by JM2K6
Capitalism is a system that essentially demands greed. Almost by definition - it's a system that ultimately prioritises profits by private individuals above all other considerations. Any attempts to discuss capitalism without accepting that as a fact is doomed to fail.
Re: Stop voting for fucking Tories
Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2023 10:25 am
by Line6 HXFX
You have perfect world capitalists, lazzaire faire capitalists, cunty capitalists, people who believe that capitalism will spread liberal democracy capitalists, you have barrow boy capitalists, honest bob three for a fiver from down the market capitalists, you have slaves to capitalists, American capitalists, shop owner capitalists, investor capitalists, landlord and housing capitalists, avoid paying tax capitalists, exploit the poor capitalists, billionaire capitalists, true believer capitalists, better than the alternative (for them) capitalists, shit something is burning in the oven, better go check capitalists, back now..capitalists..you have benevolent capitalists, Russian oligarch capitalists, addiction capitalists, veterinarian capitalists, vegetarian capitalists, religious indoctrination capitalists, CAPITAL'ist capitalists, anti capitalism capitalists..
Re: Stop voting for fucking Tories
Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2023 10:46 am
by tc27
Kind of related to this I have always found managed economies fascinating - the economy of the Soviet Union in particular.
The absolute failure of a central planning even based on models created by the best and brightest to get the right goods to the right place - the soviets did attempt to distribute consumer goods 'fairly' but were hamstrung but the decision to focus on heavy industry and military production.
The absurd supermarket model with separate queues for ordering, collecting and paying - in a sense fairer as it kept two more people than necessary in a job. The failure to create a micro processor industry, the failure of collective agriculture ETC ETC.
Re: Stop voting for fucking Tories
Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2023 10:51 am
by I like neeps
The good news for the Tories is Liz Truss is back saying that she was right all along.
Re: Stop voting for fucking Tories
Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2023 10:54 am
by Line6 HXFX
tc27 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 18, 2023 10:46 am
Kind of related to this I have always found managed economies fascinating - the economy of the Soviet Union in particular.
The absolute failure of a central planning even based on models created by the best and brightest to get the right goods to the right place - the soviets did attempt to distribute consumer goods 'fairly' but were hamstrung but the decision to focus on heavy industry and military production.
The absurd supermarket model with separate queues for ordering, collecting and paying - in a sense fairer as it kept two more people than necessary in a job. The failure to create a micro processor industry, the failure of collective agriculture ETC ETC.
We have rivers full of shit, 7 million people on waiting lists, hospitals and schools crumbling, railways falling to bits, Drs on strike, inequality not seen since anytime in our history, and privatised industries deciding they are going to charge us the earth for our water, gas, electric, foodbanks, child poverty at like 50% and human misery atop human misery, all fucking deliberately manufactured by our political leaders.
And we don't really have a Micro processor industry either.
The good news for the Tories is Liz Truss is back saying that she was right all along.
That's different levels of delusion.
You'd kind of hope that people have enough sense to vote such a moron out at the next election, but, Norfolk...
Re: Stop voting for fucking Tories
Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2023 12:24 pm
by sockwithaticket
fishfoodie wrote: ↑Sun Sep 17, 2023 1:19 pm
Why amn’t I surprised that that intellectual black hole, Cleverly, suggesting the Entertainment industry needs to get its house in order, re sexual harassment/assault ?
Maybe he should have a look at the percentages there versus his own chosen profession before he starts throwing stones ? Fucking moron.
Presumably he means they need to get better at suppressing those who wish to speak out. I think it might've been on Channel 4 that I recently watched a program about parliamentary sexual harassment and one of the key takeaways was that a couple of the complainants interviewed said they wished they'd never bothered. The complaints system implemented was taking 18 months to deal with issues raised and even in the event of deciding on wrong doing merely suspending people for a few days by way of punishment. Complainants reported obvious stagnation of their careers after making their complaint.
Re: Stop voting for fucking Tories
Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2023 1:48 pm
by tc27
I do think our political class do need to think why growth has being anemic for so long and we never seem to recover from the 2008 GFC unlike the US.
Truss is simply a moron though - she was warned about the pension FDI issue and that markets would short UK gilts in the government pressed ahead with unfunded tax cuts but pressed ahead anyway. She claims to be a heir to Thatcher but Thatcher's mission at least at the start was about building economic credibility. She was part of the consensus that insisted on the hardest form of Brexit putting another dampener (but not IMO the only or biggest one) on the UK economy