Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Labour: "Hammond is right to say labour threaten economic system" Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics...conomic-system

    Labour has discovered worker control. Platform co-ops + apps = future of socialism.


    Davij038
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    So Labour has turned to market "Socialism" (democratic Capitalism).

    Better than neo-liberalism, but it's still Capitalism.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Fine- but this model (I believe) will lead to higher prices for consumers overall which would lead to less demand and therefore less jobs. This was how Uber was able to beat the Black Cabs.

    Additionally such a model (along with zero hour contracts) are flexible which is valued by certain workers.

    It’s also problematic with the libertarian fondness for immigration as the swedes are discovering as newcomers find it hard to enter the workforce with collective bargaining arrangements.

    Now it may be that in a just society it is right that workers rights and wages should come before customer value/ affordability but this moral society won’t come about through government diktat.

    This just society seems to work better through s communitarian franewirknwhich requires a more homogenous and traditional society which would be generally hostile to libertarianism. To coin a phrase it sounds like National-Mutualism!
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Fine- but this model (I believe) will lead to higher prices for consumers overall which would lead to less demand and therefore less jobs. This was how Uber was able to beat the Black Cabs.

    Additionally such a model (along with zero hour contracts) are flexible which is valued by certain workers.

    It’s also problematic with the libertarian fondness for immigration as the swedes are discovering as newcomers find it hard to enter the workforce with collective bargaining arrangements.

    Now it may be that in a just society it is right that workers rights and wages should come before customer value/ affordability but this moral society won’t come about through government diktat.

    This just society seems to work better through s communitarian franewirknwhich requires a more homogenous and traditional society which would be generally hostile to libertarianism. To coin a phrase it sounds like National-Mutualism!
    The reason Uber beat the other taxi firms is because Uber was intentionally running at a loss, because it could afford to. Uber was subsidising up to 40% of the fares and it was losing a huge amount, each year.

    You may think 'great, they're making things cheaper' but the only reason they were aggressively undercutting like this was to drive other competitors out the market. Uber clearly cannot carry on making a loss, so it's rather likely that once they had driven competitors out the market, they would whack up their prices.

    It is not a good business model for the consumer.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    The reason Uber beat the other taxi firms is because Uber was intentionally running at a loss, because it could afford to. Uber was subsidising up to 40% of the fares and it was losing a huge amount, each year.

    You may think 'great, they're making things cheaper' but the only reason they were aggressively undercutting like this was to drive other competitors out the market. Uber clearly cannot carry on making a loss, so it's rather likely that once they had driven competitors out the market, they would whack up their prices.

    It is not a good business model for the consumer.
    Don’t see a problem with this- when they rise prices up then smaller firms can compete again

    Whilst it’s a good business strategy (arguably) it’s not one they’ll be able to keep on repeating- thus improving and innovating business- capitalism at work!
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    If uber shared it’s profit equally among drivers, the drivers would be getting paid a negative sum.. so they’d be paying a bill lol
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Don’t see a problem with this- when they rise prices up then smaller firms can compete again

    Whilst it’s a good business strategy (arguably) it’s not one they’ll be able to keep on repeating- thus improving and innovating business- capitalism at work!
    They won't be, because they'll have gone bankrupt or become non commercially viable/ gone and done something else. Monopolies like this are bad, they create conglomerates in which the same few people own the majority of the country's wealth.

    Free market economics leads to monopolies which reduces, rather than increases consumer choice and unlike with public ownership, there is no democratic accountability.

    As for 'capitalism at work', well yes you are correct. Workers being paid low amounts and being placed on insecure contracts without any of the normal employment rights, facing ever increasing demands from their employer. Meanwhile other people are told to be happy that workers are being treated awfully because they get a cheaper taxi ride at the moment. I guess treating people like that is 'capitalism at work' though?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    The reason Uber beat the other taxi firms is because Uber was intentionally running at a loss, because it could afford to. Uber was subsidising up to 40% of the fares and it was losing a huge amount, each year.

    You may think 'great, they're making things cheaper' but the only reason they were aggressively undercutting like this was to drive other competitors out the market. Uber clearly cannot carry on making a loss, so it's rather likely that once they had driven competitors out the market, they would whack up their prices.

    It is not a good business model for the consumer.
    The sort of transparently silly stuff you lead on the internet. If that was actually a credible business model, there would be nothing at all stop to stop a rival springing up just as quickly. The idea that creating a monopoly would be viable in the first place is daft, as is that idea that a monopoly would somehow survive in this way.

    The reason that Uber runs at a loss is because it is entering a wide range of new markets. That's a normal situation for a fast-expanding start-up.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    They won't be, because they'll have gone bankrupt or become non commercially viable/ gone and done something else. Monopolies like this are bad, they create conglomerates in which the same few people own the majority of the country's wealth.

    Free market economics leads to monopolies which reduces, rather than increases consumer choice and unlike with public ownership, there is no democratic accountability.

    As for 'capitalism at work', well yes you are correct. Workers being paid low amounts and being placed on insecure contracts without any of the normal employment rights, facing ever increasing demands from their employer. Meanwhile other people are told to be happy that workers are being treated awfully because they get a cheaper taxi ride at the moment. I guess treating people like that is 'capitalism at work' though?
    The car industry is interesting- when we have driverless cars it won’t really matter anyway.

    Other than natural resources and national treasures there is no national wealth. Again- capitalism creates not steals wealth. This is fundamental.

    Why should I care if a taxi company goes bust if I get the exact same service for cheaper? The public may choose to create monopolies but the difference is in a free market economy they shouldn’t in theory be bailed out by the taxpayer when/ if they fail.

    The public sector is often more unaccountable than business- eg education, social services, health, BBC etc. All institutions are human and thus subject to flaws.

    Meh that’s just your lefty take on it.

    Workers are not ‘placed’ on anything. If they could get anything better they would. The alternative is that or go on the Dole. Now I appreciate that’s not a great choice but it’s better than being unemployed because there’s no work.

    If it wasn’t for Zero hour contracts ‘exploiting’ me (taking a risk hiring a low skill individual) I’d still be on benefits today. Now I’ve been promoted and have a steady career because I’ve been able to have the opportunity to prove myself.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)

    Now it may be that in a just society it is right that workers rights and wages should come before customer value/ affordability but this moral society won’t come about through government diktat.
    I don't see why government can not help. Government after all interferes with capitalism and is part of it imo. This isn't really a barrier though. This stuff can only work if people start to do it themselves to a large extent. But again with the social democracy vs Marxism. Social democracy is much more about forcing moral behaviour through the state where as in Marxism it's based on class self interest from below (morals have nothing to do with Marxist historical materialism). I'm aware this doesn't actually fit well with what Marxist dictatorships actually did and still do...


    (Original post by Davij038)
    The car industry is interesting- when we have driverless cars it won’t really matter anyway.

    Other than natural resources and national treasures there is no national wealth. Again- capitalism creates not steals wealth. This is fundamental.

    Why should I care if a taxi company goes bust if I get the exact same service for cheaper? The public may choose to create monopolies but the difference is in a free market economy they shouldn’t in theory be bailed out by the taxpayer when/ if they fail.

    The public sector is often more unaccountable than business- eg education, social services, health, BBC etc. All institutions are human and thus subject to flaws.

    Meh that’s just your lefty take on it.

    Workers are not ‘placed’ on anything. If they could get anything better they would. The alternative is that or go on the Dole. Now I appreciate that’s not a great choice but it’s better than being unemployed because there’s no work.

    If it wasn’t for Zero hour contracts ‘exploiting’ me (taking a risk hiring a low skill individual) I’d still be on benefits today. Now I’ve been promoted and have a steady career because I’ve been able to have the opportunity to prove myself.
    I know not all places are the same but my experience of zero hours contracts are about the employer wanting some extra work force during busy time periods in the warehouse sector with no intention of retaining that workforce, never mind offering a career path. Instead of banning zero hours contracts there should be a basic income, that way employers that rely on them can still exist and the employee still gets a reasonable income. It would also empower the workforce so which may mean the exploitative employers who can afford more and better working conditions would be forced do so due to the labour market now favouring the worker.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Corbyn should be focusing on some genuine Marxian analysist not this Titoist garbage. A planned economy is what the future needs.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    I don't see why government can not help. Government after all interferes with capitalism and is part of it imo. This isn't really a barrier though. This stuff can only work if people start to do it themselves to a large extent. But again with the social democracy vs Marxism. Social democracy is much more about forcing moral behaviour through the state where as in Marxism it's based on class self interest from below (morals have nothing to do with Marxist historical materialism). I'm aware this doesn't actually fit well with what Marxist dictatorships actually did and still do...
    Highlights yet another flaw in the ‘inevitable’ march to communism.

    Original communism under Lenin was actually ‘authentic’ communism but failed through other predictable factors. Now communism is alive only through intelligentsia many miles from average working people.

    The answer clearly has been when the native proletariat reject communism is to export third world peasantry instead as well as try and break up traditional ‘hegemonic’ institutions.

    I know not all places are the same but my experience of zero hours contracts are about the employer wanting some extra work force during busy time periods in the warehouse sector with no intention of retaining that workforce, never mind offering a career path. Instead of banning zero hours contracts there should be a basic income, that way employers that rely on them can still exist and the employee still gets a reasonable income. It would also empower the workforce so which may mean the exploitative employers who can afford more and better working conditions would be forced do so due to the labour market now favouring the worker.
    I’d be fine with that- and so is the ASI!

    Btw I’m not saying that dodgy employers and contracts don’t exist (eg sports direct)

    But that’s Generally the exception rather than the rule.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)

    Other than natural resources and national treasures there is no national wealth. Again- capitalism creates not steals wealth. This is fundamental.
    Really? When the stock markets crashed in the 20s, leading to mass poverty and homelessness, was that capitalism creating wealth?

    When the financial markets crashed again in 2008, leading to a situation which, bar for government intervention, would have brought the world's economy crashing down, was that capitalism creating wealth?

    How about the fact that our privatised train system means that other governments benefit from our trains but our taxpayers don't. That seems to be taking wealth away from us, not giving it.

    You throw out these soundbites, but the reality is rather different.


    Why should I care if a taxi company goes bust if I get the exact same service for cheaper? The public may choose to create monopolies but the difference is in a free market economy they shouldn’t in theory be bailed out by the taxpayer when/ if they fail.
    Yes, why should you care if businesses employing lots of people go bust? Why should you care if employers are given insecure contracts and treated poorly? I guess as long as you get a nice cheap taxi ride, you shouldn't care about workers being treated badly, right?

    As for 'they shouldn't be bailed out'...
    If the banks had not been bailed out in 2008, the world's economy would have come crashing down. That is not an exaggeration. Cash machines in this country were 8 hours away from running out of money. Think about how many people had life savings, pensions etc invested in the banks. Millions of people would have lost everything, their money, their homes etc. The chain reaction, due to the integrated global economy, would have been catastrophic.

    I know libertarians think they are being rebellious when they say 'the banks shouldn't have been bailed out' but they're being rather silly. Of course I have long argued that we shouldn't allow an economic system which allows a handful of companies and to own/control the vast majority of the country's wealth but you've argued against me on that point.


    The public sector is often more unaccountable than business- eg education, social services, health, BBC etc. All institutions are human and thus subject to flaws.
    The BBC has higher approval ratings and runs more efficiently and profitably than many of its private sector competitors. A classic example of a public sector organisation being able to provide a more efficient service. The NHS too is more efficient than private sector competitors. On both there is accountability at the ballot box. No such accountability exists with private sector monopolies.


    Workers are not ‘placed’ on anything. If they could get anything better they would. The alternative is that or go on the Dole. Now I appreciate that’s not a great choice but it’s better than being unemployed because there’s no work.
    So we should accept workers being treated poorly then and not strive for better? Okay.

    If it wasn’t for Zero hour contracts ‘exploiting’ me (taking a risk hiring a low skill individual) I’d still be on benefits today. Now I’ve been promoted and have a steady career because I’ve been able to have the opportunity to prove myself.
    They can work for some people. For many others they do not. You seem to be promoting a race to the bottom where we strip away as many employment rights as possible. What type of society is that?

    The Scandinavian countries prove you can treat workers well AND they are more productive as a result. We have awful worker productivity in this coutnry and with people such as yourself essentially arguing we should do nothing about their miserable working conditions, it's little surprise.

    There are countless studies which show that treating people better and focusing on your employees satisfaction/fulfilment with a role leads to higher productivity and increased loyalty. So not only is it kinder, but it actually is better economically.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Really? When the stock markets crashed in the 20s, leading to mass poverty and homelessness, was that capitalism creating wealth?

    When the financial markets crashed again in 2008, leading to a situation which, bar for government intervention, would have brought the world's economy crashing down, was that capitalism creating wealth?
    You mean government intervention to fix the mess created in part by government. The bail outs were necessary to some degree- but it’s not even a left-right pointvto note the collision between government and the banks. A lot of those bankers should have been sued but were protected.

    Yes, why should you care if businesses employing lots of people go bust?
    If it’s due to technological innovation then kinda, unless you’re a Luddite. Open up the coal mines!

    Why should you care if employers are given insecure contracts and treated poorly? I guess as long as you get a nice cheap taxi ride, you shouldn't care about workers being treated badly, right?
    Define treated ‘badly’...

    As for 'they shouldn't be bailed out'...
    If the banks had not been bailed out in 2008, the world's economy would have come crashing down. That is not an exaggeration. Cash machines in this country were 8 hours away from running out of money. Think about how many people had life savings, pensions etc invested in the banks. Millions of people would have lost everything, their money, their homes etc. The chain reaction, due to the integrated global economy, would have been catastrophic.
    Indeed. But I think this is a consequence if governments creating fiat money. Capitalism isn’t good or evil- it will just do whatever is profitable. Government is also neither inherently or evil- it will just do what it needs to cling to power.

    I know libertarians think they are being rebellious when they say 'the banks shouldn't have been bailed out' but they're being rather silly. Of course I have long argued that we shouldn't allow an economic system which allows a handful of companies and to own/control the vast majority of the country's wealth but you've argued against me on that point.
    See above. You’ve argued that instead of s numver if monopolies we should have one controlled by government.

    I would probably have bailed out the banks too, but there’s other things we should be doing. It’s like paying off an urgent loan with a credit card. The credit cards not the solution either. Bottom line is we need to live within our means not 2 trillion in debt (from both parties)


    On both [nhs and BBC ] there is accountability at the ballot box.
    Give me an example.

    So we should accept workers being treated poorly then and not strive for better? Okay.
    Again, define ‘poorly’.

    Obviously pragmatism comes into it somewhere. Otherwise why shouldn’t we be paying our hardworking bin men 2k per day? Don’t they work hard?

    They can work for some people. For many others they do not. You seem to be promoting a race to the bottom where we strip away as many employment rights as possible. What type of society is that?
    A realistic one where progress is possible rather than an idealistic one where it isn’t.

    What type of society needs legislation on how to be a decent person?

    There are countless studies which show that treating people better and focusing on your employees satisfaction/fulfilment with a role leads to higher productivity and increased loyalty. So not only is it kinder, but it actually is better economically.
    I 100% agree with you. But that’s not the point of discussion at all. I agree that it pays to treat your workers well. But

    A: where will the money come from for treating employees well

    B: how will (particularly small) business be able to afford it

    C: will it get in the way of our business goals?

    D: huge array of other possible consequences.


    My son used to go to a small nursery. Due to the increase in the minimum wage they were forced to lose 2 of their staff members (putting them on the dole) but make up the numbers. This caused greater strain on the staff (and the children) and in the long run they would probably have been better off not gettting the pay rise.

    I don’t want workers to suffer but the reality is a lot more nuanced than you are making it out to be.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    You mean government intervention to fix the mess created in part by government. The bail outs were necessary to some degree- but it’s not even a left-right pointvto note the collision between government and the banks. A lot of those bankers should have been sued but were protected.
    This is a really disingenuous argument and i'm disappointed to see you make it. It's the type of thing that Libertarians and free-marketeers tell themselves to make themselves feel better about the fact that their chosen economic system failed and needed to be bailed out.

    The economic crash was not caused by government 'intervention'. Rather the reverse. It was added to by governments liberalising and deregulating, ie reducing intervention and not increasing it. For example, Clinton allowed banks to gamble away with ordinary peoples' savings, which meant banks no longer had to keep a reserve of money. Banks were also allowed to give away mortgages to people with no income. Markets in general were deregulated. The crash was a result of financial integration and market de-regualtion, not government intervention.

    It seems rather strange to argue that government is at fault and the free-market is wonderful, when the 2008 crash was partly a cause of the government giving more power to the free-market.

    This is when I get rather annoyed at people advancing the cause of neoliberalism. I accept when socialism has failed, they however will not accept when free-marketism has failed and instead look to shift blame and argue the most tenuous points.

    The 2008 crash was not a result of government 'intervention'. Not even partly. It was a failure of the free market which concentrated enormous amounts of wealth in the hands of a few to the point where if they failed, the world's economy would come crashing down.


    Indeed. But I think this is a consequence if governments creating fiat money. Capitalism isn’t good or evil- it will just do whatever is profitable. Government is also neither inherently or evil- it will just do what it needs to cling to power.
    Capitalism clearly didn't do what was profitable in the long run in 2008. In fact it put short term profit ahead of long term security with dire consequences. It nearly brought the world's economy crashing down and the capitalist system had to be saved by one of the most notable acts of socialism (bail-out) that we've had in decades.

    See above. You’ve argued that instead of s numver if monopolies we should have one controlled by government.
    No I have not. I do not believe we should nationalise banks but rather that we should step in to prevent banks becoming so large and so powerful that if one crashes, the global economy comes crashing down and people lose anything. A bank that is 'too big to fail' is quite simply too big and should be broken up.

    I believe governments are accountable at the ballot box. If you don't like how a government runs something, vote them out. You can't vote out a private sector monopoly.



    Again, define ‘poorly’.

    Obviously pragmatism comes into it somewhere. Otherwise why shouldn’t we be paying our hardworking bin men 2k per day? Don’t they work hard?


    A realistic one where progress is possible rather than an idealistic one where it isn’t.

    What type of society needs legislation on how to be a decent person?



    I 100% agree with you. But that’s not the point of discussion at all. I agree that it pays to treat your workers well. But

    A: where will the money come from for treating employees well

    B: how will (particularly small) business be able to afford it

    C: will it get in the way of our business goals?

    D: huge array of other possible consequences.


    My son used to go to a small nursery. Due to the increase in the minimum wage they were forced to lose 2 of their staff members (putting them on the dole) but make up the numbers. This caused greater strain on the staff (and the children) and in the long run they would probably have been better off not gettting the pay rise.

    I don’t want workers to suffer but the reality is a lot more nuanced than you are making it out to be.
    All this can be answered by the same point/example. The Scandanivan countries and social market capitalist countries like Germany treat workers much better than we do AND they have more productive workforces. You make out like it's a choice between treating workers well and companies making money. The above examples show that treating workers well makes the country more money.

    Obviously there is a balance to be met so I won't respond to your silly '2k a day point' but quite clearly at the moment we are far short of that balance.

    Why can Germany and the Scandinavian countries manage it but not us?


    We have one of the least productive workforces in the western world, with one of the lowest levels of job satisfaction and your solution seems to be 'more of the same please' rather than looking at what other countries do better than us and emulating it.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    The economic crash was not caused by government 'intervention'. Rather the reverse. It was added to by governments liberalising and deregulating, ie reducing intervention and not increasing it. For example, Clinton allowed banks to gamble away with ordinary peoples' savings, which meant banks no longer had to keep a reserve of money. Banks were also allowed to give away mortgages to people with no income. Markets in general were deregulated. The crash was a result of financial integration and market de-regualtion, not government intervention.
    The governments and banks were colluding together. Both were at fault. If the government hadny involved itself in the (heavily regulated) housing sector in the first place (and not been able to print out trillions of useless dollars) people would not have taken such a reckless gamble.






    The 2008 crash was not a result of government 'intervention'. Not even partly. It was a failure of the free market which concentrated enormous amounts of wealth in the hands of a few to the point where if they failed, the world's economy would come crashing down.
    Again, we had a soloution to this before the government intervened- the gold standard.


    Capitalist clearly didn't do what was profitable in the long run in 2008. In fact it put short term profit ahead of long term security with dire consequences. It nearly brought the world's economy crashing down and the capitalist system had to be saved by one of the most notable acts of socialism (bail-out) that we've had in decades.
    Well yeah...ergo it made a profit at the tax payers expense.


    No I have not. I do not believe we should nationalise banks but rather that we should step in to prevent banks becoming so large and so powerful that if one crashes, the global economy comes crashing down and people lose anything. A bank that is 'too big to fail' is quite simply too big and should be broken up.
    What about a country that is too big to fail?


    I believe governments are accountable at the ballot box. If you don't like how a government runs something, vote them out. You can't vote out a private sector monopoly.
    I as an individual can no more kick out this useless government than you can hold McDonald’s to account by not buying their produce.


    All this can be answered by the same point/example. The Scandanivan countries and social market capitalist countries like Germany treat workers much better than we do AND they have more productive workforces. You make out like it's a choice between treating workers well and companies making money. The above examples show that treating workers well makes the country more money.

    Why can Germany and the Scandinavian countries manage it but not us?


    We have one of the least productive workforces in the western world, with one of the lowest levels of job satisfaction and your solution seems to be 'more of the same please' rather than looking at what other countries do better than us and emulating it.
    If that’s the case why is the US more productive than Sweden? Or Australia more than Germany?



    https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.ind...J1Vvw8Pb%3Famp
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    The governments and banks were colluding together. Both were at fault. If the government hadny involved itself in the (heavily regulated) housing sector in the first place (and not been able to print out trillions of useless dollars) people would not have taken such a reckless gamble.

    Again, we had a soloution to this before the government intervened- the gold standard.
    I think you're missing the point here. Governments didn't intervene to give themselves more power, what governments did was give more power and more freedom to the markets. That is not 'intervention', that's the opposite. You cannot possibly suggest that 'de-regulation' which free-marketeers support counts as 'intervention'. De-regulation is the opposite of intervention.

    Your argument here seems to 'government should de-regulate and keep out the way of the free markets', yet you then blame the government for doing just that. The 2008 crash was a failure of the free market, not a failure of Keynsian economics of government intervention. The government's failure was de-regulating the free-market, which you seem to support.

    The bottom line is capitalism very nearly brought the world's economy crashing down and had to be bailed out by socialism. This goes against your claim that capitalism only generates wealth.



    What about a country that is too big to fail?
    You diversify an economy so that a country's wealth isn't concentrated in the hands of a few businesses which if they fall, bring the whole global economy down with it. You invest huge amounts of money into the country's education system and infrastructure, you promote numerous different industries. In other words you don't place all your eggs in one basket, which is what happens under a free market system. Everything becomes centred around the financial markets.


    All our money was in the financial sector, which due to the demands of the free market became increasingly deregulated. As a result, once that failed, it brought our whole economy down.


    I as an individual can no more kick out this useless government than you can hold McDonald’s to account by not buying their produce.
    Again, I think you miss the point. The argument in favour of privatisation is that it promotes competition and provides choice. The argument in favour of public ownership is that it provides a better, more inclusive and accessible service, pumping surplus money back into the service rather than taking it out as profits.

    If there is no competition, the private ownership rationale has failed, the public ownership rationale has not. I've provided numerous examples of how the public sector has been able to provide a better and more efficient service than the private sector.


    If that’s the case why is the US more productive than Sweden? Or Australia more than Germany?



    https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.ind...J1Vvw8Pb%3Famp
    The USA has staggering levels of inequality and its productivity figures are skewered by those at the top. Wages there have stagnated, like they have here. In countries like Portugal, they have risen.

    Why are you so opposed to looking at countries which have happier populations, with lower levels of poverty and higher levels of job satisfaction and saying 'let's emulate that'. It's almost as if some people feel that there is some sort of virtue in being miserable at work.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    I think you're missing the point here. Governments didn't intervene to give themselves more power, what governments did was give more power and more freedom to the markets.
    No, they gave more money, contracts and favours to corporates- and in return reaped the rewards from a happy electorate.

    Your argument here seems to 'government should de-regulate and keep out the way of the free markets', yet you then blame the government for doing just that. The 2008 crash was a failure of the free market, not a failure of Keynsian economics of government intervention. The government's failure was de-regulating the free-market, which you seem to support.
    We seem to be going in circles. My point is It would have been better if the government hadn’t have regulated in the first place. Hence the government being responsible.


    You diversify an economy so that a country's wealth isn't concentrated in the hands of a few businesses which if they fall, bring the whole global economy down with it. You invest huge amounts of money into the country's education system and infrastructure, you promote numerous different industries. In other words you don't place all your eggs in one basket, which is what happens under a free market .
    So you’re basically arguing against comparative advantage?

    Again, I think you miss the point. The argument in favour of privatisation is that it promotes competition and provides choice. The argument in favour of public ownership is that it provides a better, more inclusive and accessible service, pumping surplus money back into the service rather than taking it out as profits.
    Better, inclusivity and accessibility: debatable. sometimes so, sometimes not.

    They’re not pumping back money into the service necessarily. They’re pumping back money into the government which could be spent anywhere on anything (same with corporates).

    If there is no competition, the private ownership rationale has failed, the public ownership rationale has not. I've provided numerous examples of how the public sector has been able to provide a better and more efficient service than the private sector.
    I kinda agree with you though I think you expect too much of government- and that putting so much reliance on the government is a prone example of putting too many eggs in a basket.


    [auote]
    The USA has staggering levels of inequality and its productivity figures are skewered by those at the top. Wages there have stagnated, like they have here. In countries like Portugal, they have risen.[/quote]

    Fine but we were discussing productivity not inequality.

    Portugal seems interesting- we’ll see how it goes. It’s certainly doing well from what I’ve read.



    Why are you so opposed to looking at countries which have happier populations, with lower levels of poverty and higher levels of job satisfaction and saying 'let's emulate that'. It's almost as if some people feel that there is some sort of virtue in being miserable at work.
    Not opposed- just skeptical and wary as per my own experiences.

    Also, just watched this: very interesting:

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2lbRkfsrt1E
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    I'm really not sure what you are basing that on. It is inarguable that the governments in western countries, especially the UK and the USA deregulated the financial markets. It is also inarguable that such deregulation played a massive role in the financial crash. I have listed numerous ways in which the market was deregulated. Eg by allowing banks to gamble with savings money and not have to keep a reserve, by allowing banks to give mortgages to people with no income. By refusing to regulate and monitor what was going on.
    That’s not the point of contention.

    Yes this level of deregulation certainly did favour the corporationss. But that's my point. This is EXACTLY what happens under free market capitalism Corporations become so big and so powerful that they can boss governments around and demand favours.
    Who bosses who? I suspect both sides are equally complicit. It’s a win- win for the corporate and political class. Or don’t you think profits from financial deregulation helped labour / Democrats win votes?



    You previously argued the rather unconvincing line of 'ah that's corporatism, not capitalism'. That's the equivalent of those on the left who say 'ah but that's not real socialism, every time a socialist state fails'.

    You can't do that. Capitalism in practice becomes corporatism. It's what happens. You can't go 'ah when capitalism goes bad, it's not real capitalism'. It was real capitalism, it was exactly what happens when you have a free-market system in which you allow corporations to become incredibly powerful to the point where a handful of corporations can bring own the world's economy if they fail.
    Two points. First of all unlike Marxism we can and do have genuine free markets in non essential industries where the state has played virtually no role - eg retail.


    Quite how you've interpreted the financial crash as being the fault of government regulations, is really bizarre. The fault was with a free market economic system yet agonisingly, those who support free-marketism refuse to ever take responsibility when their economic system crashes and causes devastation.
    I have said twice now that they are both culpable. Capitalism had a brutal corrective in the form of the Gold Standard which would hold both governments and corporates to account.

    Money isn't taken out as dividends. It stays with the taxpayer and is invested in public services.
    This could equally be going on a wasteful IT program or some nonsense diversity co-ordinator as it could be on cutting edge technology or a hard working nurse.

    Conversely you expect too much of the private sector and relying so much on the private sector, as with 2008 is putting too many eggs in one basket.

    I'm all for the private sector where it has proven it can produce a better, more inclusive and more efficient service. But in many, many areas the public sector has demonstrated it is more than capable of outperforming the private sector. One of the main reasons the BBC does so well is because it isn't under the regular profit and money-making constraints of the private sector and it is able to experiment with new ideas, such as Bake Off which become unexpectedly popular and in the end, more profitable. It has a culture which really fosters and nurtures talent.
    Not got much if s problem with the BBC but it is a trivial issue which in any case allows numerous private competition to operate. If we just had the bbc to watch it would be called censor ship but if we have one health care system it’s inclusivity!
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    That’s not the point of contention.



    Who bosses who? I suspect both sides are equally complicit. It’s a win- win for the corporate and political class. Or don’t you think profits from financial deregulation helped labour / Democrats win votes?

    Big business bosses government. Look at the influence of the gun lobbies in the USA and the pharmaceutical companies too who provide massive campaign donations to those who vote against gun control/ public healthcare. Look at how the big four accountancy firms, who profit from tax avoidance, actually help write the tax codes in this country which they then use to exploit.


    Then what is the point of contention? My initial point was that capitalism does not only 'create wealth' as you initially argued but it can lose wealth too. To the point where capitalism nearly brought down the world's economy which would have caused millions and millions to lose everything.

    Which bit of that do you contend with? The argument seems to be that 'oh well that was corporatism' but i've dealt with that. the 2008 crash is exactly what happens in a free-market, deregulated economic system.


    Two points. First of all unlike Marxism we can and do have genuine free markets in non essential industries where the state has played virtually no role - eg retail.
    There are a tonne of rules and regulations for retail. You can't for example hire children to make your products or use slave labour. You can't sell substandard products. There are regulations on trading hours, delivery services, etc.

    I accept there is less regulation there and I am fine with that. Clearly there is less risk deregulating retail, than there is deregulating medical services or the financial markets.

    Essential services should command by nature, a great deal of regulation.


    I have said twice now that they are both culpable. Capitalism had a brutal corrective in the form of the Gold Standard which would hold both governments and corporates to account.
    The only fault of the government was giving in to capitalism, rather than regulating it.

    Getting rid of the gold standard was necessary for allowing countries' economies to recover after the Great Depression. You need a stimulus package to get out of a recession, as demonstrated again in 2008.



    This could equally be going on a wasteful IT program or some nonsense diversity co-ordinator as it could be on cutting edge technology or a hard working nurse.
    The private sector also wastes money.
    Not got much if s problem with the BBC but it is a trivial issue which in any case allows numerous private competition to operate. If we just had the bbc to watch it would be called censor ship but if we have one health care system it’s inclusivity!
    The NHS does not prevent private sector competitors from offering services. The fact that private healthcare is so expensive, rather defends the point I have been making.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: October 17, 2017
  • 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
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    Useful resources

    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

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