Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by jakeel1)
    Perhaps we could start by founding state capitalist competitors that drive private enterprise out of business, and then later convert them to public companies.
    You can't solve a problem with the same thinking that created the problem in the first place.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    I don't understand what's so difficult to understand about this. Companies that rake in absolutely massive profits and individuals of massive wealth should obviously have to pay more back to society than poorer individuals since they have a greater means of doing this. Anybody who cares about social and financial equality would agree with this. It is a complete fallacy to use the argument that decreasing taxes for the wealthy makes sense because it will ultimately bring in more money because, whilst it might technically be true, it is precisely this argument that is the driving cause of the absurd gap between the rich and poor. Trickle-down economics does not work. It was an absolutely massive betrayal to their values of Labour to pursue this policy and anybody in favour of it is not in favour of social equality.



    But of course most people with a degree are going to benefit from 'increased' wages? What we need to be concerned about are the effects of the person's job, not their payslip. A professor of climate change is certainly going to 'benefit' in terms of higher than average wages but it doesn't change the fact that they've (probably) put their degree to the good of society.
    Your not arguing with an ideology your arguing with economics. We're a capitalist country and everything your using, everything you enjoy has been built primarily because their was a financial interest in it. Unless you want to try something else (in which you'd be part of a tiny minority) this is what we're stuck with. Scare of the buisness and we're pretty much ****ed. However there is a 'Third way' which I believe can be implemented. It would basically be a high technology, high skilled economy supported by strong socialism and the removing off national infrustructure that is important to social fairness off the private market (i.e NHS, education, railways). It would however take massive changes to FE and HE (to provide highly skilled workers), industry regulations ect. Personally I don't think it would be difficult to achieve without something like 50-60% of people doing apprenticeships.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    You can't solve a problem with the same thinking that created the problem in the first place.
    So what magic capitalism out of existence? I don't support your view, but if I were to the best way I could see it working is for the state to regain control over the means of production through capitalism and then changing the structure of the economy internally.
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by jakeel1)
    So what magic capitalism out of existence? I don't support your view, but if I were to the best way I could see it working is for the state to regain control over the means of production through capitalism and then changing the structure of the economy internally.
    How do you ensure the state's own companies don't end up being just as bad or worse than the companies you're trying to out-compete?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    How do you ensure the state's own companies don't end up being just as bad or worse than the companies you're trying to out-compete?
    Same way you ensure the political system stops people from being killed by genocide, checks and balances and accountability and a bit of luck, and yes a bit of direction from a few dedicated technocrats. Most nations have not been born out of liberty coming from no where, a few dedicated individuals with a vision have rebelled and directed the country until the time it is ripe to help itself. As authoritarianism has been used to create a democracy, capitalism could be used to create socialism in the right hands.
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by jakeel1)
    Same way you ensure the political system stops people from being killed by genocide, checks and balances and accountability and a bit of luck, and yes a bit of direction from a few dedicated technocrats. Most nations have not been born out of liberty coming from no where, a few dedicated individuals with a vision have rebelled and directed the country until the time it is ripe to help itself. As authoritarianism has been used to create a democracy, capitalism could be used to create socialism in the right hands.
    In order to stop your own corporations from being worse than your competitor's, you need to regulate them more strongly. Hence their products will probably still be cheaper and you will not be able to out-compete them. On top of that, a truly sustainable socialist future is based on small-scale communal-ownership so you really don't want to start that off by having massive state-owned businesses.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    In order to stop your own corporations from being worse than your competitor's, you need to regulate them more strongly. Hence their products will probably still be cheaper and you will not be able to out-compete them. On top of that, a truly sustainable socialist future is based on small-scale communal-ownership so you really don't want to start that off by having massive state-owned businesses.
    Well then you can start by not regulating until the competition is down enough, and then introduce regulation step by step to suppress competition as any good monopoly does. Heck you could practice a few dubious protectionist policies to give you an advantage with regulation as well, it won't matter when you have most of the means of production. When the time is right you (when you have most of the means of production, you won't get all of it) decentralise the companies.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    How do you ensure the state's own companies don't end up being just as bad or worse than the companies you're trying tot out-compete?
    Well I suppose they'd be accountable to the electorate but when has that ever stopped anything bad? The sad fact of the matter is there are no good guys and bad guys (i.e those on the left seem to blame buisness owners, while those on the right blame unions) its not as simple as that. Some businesses are good and invest into their employees and community, some are bad and no better than slave owners. We have to ALL work together (i.e government, workers, unions) to push out bad industry practices and encourage good ones. Often good industry practices are mutually beneficial, the most successful businesses are often ones that invest something good and moral for the lack of a better word into their communities and customers.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Leeds98)
    Your not arguing with an ideology your arguing with economics. We're a capitalist country and everything your using, everything you enjoy has been built primarily because their was a financial interest in it. Unless you want to try something else (in which you'd be part of a tiny minority) this is what we're stuck with. Scare of the buisness and we're pretty much ****ed. However there is a 'Third way' which I believe can be implemented. It would basically be a high technology, high skilled economy supported by strong socialism and the removing off national infrustructure that is important to social fairness off the private market (i.e NHS, education, railways). It would however take massive changes to FE and HE (to provide highly skilled workers), industry regulations ect. Personally I don't think it would be difficult to achieve without something like 50-60% of people doing apprenticeships.
    My views appear similiar to yours, we must balance state enterprise with private enterprise to ensure the future prosperity of the country, too much foreign investment without any state infrastructure is a very dangerous game to play. I think we need a more practically oriented educational system, as of now it clearly does not work to promote the sciences and arts for the vast majority; culture should be the foundation of a nation, and yet a popular sentiment in our nation is a dislike of being cultured. These people, and our nation would be far better if we paid for them to learn a trade.
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by jakeel1)
    Well then you can start by not regulating until the competition is down enough, and then introduce regulation step by step to suppress competition as any good monopoly does. Heck you could practice a few dubious protectionist policies to give you an advantage with regulation as well, it won't matter when you have most of the means of production. When the time is right you (when you have most of the means of production, you won't get all of it) decentralise the companies.
    So your answer to capitalism running riot is... more deregulated capitalism? Are you even thinking about this? Actions have consequences. All the while you're carrying out your capitalist anti-capitalist policy, inequality is going to continue to go through the roof and the environment is going to carry on being degraded. These aspects of society have tipping points. There comes a point where people will take things into their own hands, and when the environment suddenly flips into a new, less-friendly state.

    (Original post by Leeds98)
    Well I suppose they'd be accountable to the electorate but when has that ever stopped anything bad? The sad fact of the matter is there are no good guys and bad guys (i.e those on the left seem to blame buisness owners, while those on the right blame unions) its not as simple as that. Some businesses are good and invest into their employees and community, some are bad and no better than slave owners. We have to ALL work together (i.e government, workers, unions) to push out bad industry practices and encourage good ones. Often good industry practices are mutually beneficial, the most successful businesses are often ones that invest something good and moral for the lack of a better word into their communities and customers.
    Corporations are legally obligated to put the financial interests of their shareholders in front of anything else. With all the regulation in the world, you cannot have a socially responsible system when adhering to the law is a question of cost vs benefit.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    So your answer to capitalism running riot is... more deregulated capitalism? Are you even thinking about this? Actions have consequences. All the while you're carrying out your capitalist anti-capitalist policy, inequality is going to continue to go through the roof and the environment is going to carry on being degraded. These aspects of society have tipping points. There comes a point where people will take things into their own hands, and when the environment suddenly flips into a new, less-friendly state.
    .
    Yes, deregulated capitalism in the hands of people who want a different direction for the country, think of it like authoritarianism for example, certain leaders used the system to direct it towards democracy (particularly Turkey and Portugal), I am supporting a short term risk (because lets be serious here, you're not going to accomplish what you want without any loss or risk) for long term benefit.
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by jakeel1)
    Yes, deregulated capitalism in the hands of people who want a different direction for the country, think of it like authoritarianism for example, certain leaders used the system to direct it towards democracy (particularly Turkey and Portugal), I am supporting a short term risk (because lets be serious here, you're not going to accomplish what you want without any loss or risk) for long term benefit.
    Authoritarianism is never the solution. Any sustainable movement has to be by the people, for the people. The only sustainable society is a society that has been built by its own people. A top-down approach is never going to lead us to where we want to be. Any movement needs to be bottom-up and social. These movements gather momentum by their own and have already been the cause of many successes around the world.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    Authoritarianism is never the solution. Any sustainable movement has to be by the people, for the people. The only sustainable society is a society that has been built by its own people. A top-down approach is never going to lead us to where we want to be. Any movement needs to be bottom-up and social. These movements gather momentum by their own and have already been the cause of many successes around the world.
    Tell that to Turkey. Your trust in the people is not noble, it is stupid, the elite must be dealt with by an elite it has always been this way, just look at evey revolution in existence, none of them came from the peasants will power. This is why socialism is not taken seriously anymore, its not based on observation, experimentation and comparison, it's pure fancy.
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by jakeel1)
    Tell that to Turkey. Your trust in the people is not noble, it is stupid, the elite must be dealt with by an elite it has always been this way, just look at evey revolution in existence, none of them came from the peasants will power. This is why socialism is not taken seriously anymore, its not based on observation, experimentation and comparison, it's pure fancy.
    Why are you heralding Turkey as a role model?! Not only are they in a totally different situation to this country but I honestly don't see what you think is so particularly admirable about what they're doing.

    All of the big revolutions these days have been bottom-up. The 'Arab spring' was organised by the people through social media. Same thing goes for the Occupy Movement. The massive increase in renewables uptake and nuclear opposition in countries like Germany and the Netherlands has been organised through communities and people, not through the "elite". The elite are not making any progress, they're simply making the problem worse through self-interest.

    Next you'll be saying we should combat Nazism by supporting even more extreme Nazism to dismantle them from the inside...
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    Why are you heralding Turkey as a role model?! Not only are they in a totally different situation to this country but I honestly don't see what you think is so particularly admirable about what they're doing.

    All of the big revolutions these days have been bottom-up. The 'Arab spring' was organised by the people through social media. Same thing goes for the Occupy Movement. The massive increase in renewables uptake and nuclear opposition in countries like Germany and the Netherlands has been organised through communities and people, not through the "elite". The elite are not making any progress, they're simply making the problem worse through self-interest.

    Next you'll be saying we should combat Nazism by supporting even more extreme Nazism to dismantle them from the inside...
    Turkey were the only forwards thinking country in the Middle East precisely because an authoritarian group dealt with the repressive customs of the Ottoman Empire, they are a model of progress because they represent what is necessary to change over 600 years of tradition.

    The Arab Spring was awful not progress, it was also not organised solely by people but by groups of elites who led the people and provided equipment and funding.

    Germany and the Netherlands are not taking up renewables because a bunch of hippy non violent protesters want them to out of the goodness of their hearts; they're doing it because they see the long term value in it.

    No that's a ridiculous argument. A better analogy would be Lloyd George using the Parliamentary system to introduce social welfare.
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by jakeel1)
    Turkey were the only forwards thinking country in the Middle East precisely because an authoritarian group dealt with the repressive customs of the Ottoman Empire, they are a model of progress because they represent what is necessary to change over 600 years of tradition.

    The Arab Spring was awful not progress, it was also not organised solely by people but by groups of elites who led the people and provided equipment and funding.

    Germany and the Netherlands are not taking up renewables because a bunch of hippy non violent protesters want them to out of the goodness of their hearts; they're doing it because they see the long term value in it.

    No that's a ridiculous argument. A better analogy would be Lloyd George using the Parliamentary system to introduce social welfare.
    I honestly can't see how you can call Turkey "forward thinking". They might be marginally less terrible than some of their neighbours but they're hardly the bastion of forward thinking in the world...

    The Arab Spring may have been exploited by the elite but it was organised and powered by the people. When Egypt, for instance, imposed an internet blackout, it was groups organised by ordinary people who set up proxies that allowed them to continue accessing the internet and relayed information out of the country into the popular media. All of the big protests were organised socially through social media. There was no leader of that movement, it was a movement of the people.

    And of course they're taking up renewables because they see long-term value in it... that's precisely why ordinary people are supporting it. They see long term benefits to themselves and the environment by having small-scale, community-owned solar and wind installations. Most of these developments aren't led by industry, they're led by ordinary people with government subsidies. There's no corporation or place for the elites in the equation. You've got it backwards!

    I hope you're not serious with your last paragraph. You are advocating to change an entire political system using the system that caused the problem in the first place. That is completely different to Lloyd George using parliament to introduce welfare because the point of parliament in the first place is to support the people. All Lloyd George was doing was doing what the system was supposed to be doing in the first place.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    I honestly can't see how you can call Turkey "forward thinking". They might be marginally less terrible than some of their neighbours but they're hardly the bastion of forward thinking in the world...

    The Arab Spring may have been exploited by the elite but it was organised and powered by the people. When Egypt, for instance, imposed an internet blackout, it was groups organised by ordinary people who set up proxies that allowed them to continue accessing the internet and relayed information out of the country into the popular media. All of the big protests were organised socially through social media. There was no leader of that movement, it was a movement of the people.

    And of course they're taking up renewables because they see long-term value in it... that's precisely why ordinary people are supporting it. They see long term benefits to themselves and the environment by having small-scale, community-owned solar and wind installations. Most of these developments aren't led by industry, they're led by ordinary people with government subsidies. There's no corporation or place for the elites in the equation. You've got it backwards!

    I hope you're not serious with your last paragraph. You are advocating to change an entire political system using the system that caused the problem in the first place. That is completely different to Lloyd George using parliament to introduce welfare because the point of parliament in the first place is to support the people. All Lloyd George was doing was doing what the system was supposed to be doing in the first place.
    Turkey is the most progressive country in the region, yes it has had setbacks, yes it has an Islamist ******* as a president, but all of these are examples of policies to the opposite of the group I am talking about, the problems are mainly being caused by Islam rearing its ugly head in public again.

    What has the Arab Spring achieved really? Sod all but misery and same old same old governments.

    Industry has no contributions to renewable energy sources? No state funding for it? Oh yes...

    I am very serious with my last paragraph, it may be inconvinient to you because it supports my point that you can change a system using a system, just for the record Parliament was never introduced to help the people, it was introduced to pass legislation by the elites against the whims of the King. There are many examples throughout history of people using the system against the system, arguably its the only consistent thing that has worked.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blue_Mason)
    Some men like to get rammed from behind but would still consider themselves to be straight.
    yeah exactly.. but there r also some that dont like like to get rammed from behind and are straight but have " man crush"
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jakeel1)
    I am talking about, the problems are mainly being caused by Islam rearing its ugly head in public again.

    Funny how swiftly you can shift from controversial to plain offensive
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by binarythoughts)
    Funny how swiftly you can shift from controversial to plain offensive
    You mean controversial to fact? It's plain obvious to anyone who has studied the history of Turkey that once Islam was removed it started progressing and now it is being reintroduced it is reverting.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brexit voters: Do you stand by your vote?
    Useful resources
    AtCTs

    Ask the Community Team

    Got a question about the site content or our moderation? Ask here.

    Welcome Lounge

    Welcome Lounge

    We're a friendly bunch. Post here if you're new to TSR.

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.