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

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

    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    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.
    Not disagreeing with you. I just think that it’s the same on the left. All institutions are flawed.
    That 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.
    Never argued that it can’t lose wealth that would be absurd (although on average it creates far more wealth than not- see decline in global poverty) but that wealth is not stolen as many socialists argue but is created. If capitalism was about taking from others then we would not be seeing global poverty decrease.

    There are a tonne of rules and regulations for retail. You can't for example hire children to make your products
    Yes you can- eg sweatshops abroad.

    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.
    So what if everyone who worked in retail lost their job?


    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.
    No you can work your way out of a recession, rather than printing make believe money in a Ponzi scheme which screws our descendants over.

    The private sector also wastes money.
    Yeah...but it’s not our money.

    Further point. I’m not a neoliberal. But neo liberals do not see a problem with state intervention if someone has clearly broken contracts- eg swindling pensions. They would want that person jailed and the victims compensated. That’s what they see the point if the state for: upholding contracts.

    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.
    Why is it so expensive?

    https://iea.org.uk/blog/how-our-tax-...alth-insurance
    • Community Assistant
    Online

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Not disagreeing with you. I just think that it’s the same on the left. All institutions are flawed.
    That is the point of contention.
    Of course institutions have their faults and vested interests can arise. The answer to that though is not to allow for further private vested interests.

    What we have, and have had for a long time is a system which in effect allows big companies to become so powerful that they can boss governments around and effectively buy favourable legislation. That's undemocratic. As mentioned, there are countless examples of big businesses lobbying governments and politicians to vote against measures which would be beneficial to the public

    Again, you'll probably say 'ah but that's corporatism, not capitalism' but in reality there is no difference. Free market capitalism leads to corporatism and always has.

    Never argued that it can’t lose wealth that would be absurd (although on average it creates far more wealth than not- see decline in global poverty) but that wealth is not stolen as many socialists argue but is created. If capitalism was about taking from others then we would not be seeing global poverty decrease.
    I don't think you can say that on average it creates more wealth than it loses, given that it nearly brought the entire world's economy down in 2008. Millions upon millions of people would have lost everything. Capitalism was saved by a socialist bail out.

    As for global poverty decreasing. There is precious little evidence that, that is down to free-market economics. Such increases are often the result of technological and medical advancements within the state/ public sector, rather than the private one.

    Indeed, Ha Joon Chang demonstrates in his book rather nicely about how poorer countries have been held back by having free-market policies imposed upon them and how those which invested and spent heavily, fared better.


    No you can work your way out of a recession, rather than printing make believe money in a Ponzi scheme which screws our descendants over.
    No, you cannot. Not a depression such as the 1930s or even 2008 if the banks had not been bailed out. Spending has ALWAYS been the best way to recover.

    Yeah...but it’s not our money.
    It is.
    When you have a private sector monopoly, such as for the water or rail industries, it very much is our money being taken out for profits, rather than being invested back into the system.

    Again though, the public sector has frequently showed it is more efficient and can be just as innovative as the private sector. There seems to be this notion that the public sector is more inefficient than the private sector, despite very little evidence supporting it and plenty to counter it.


    Further point. I’m not a neoliberal. But neo liberals do not see a problem with state intervention if someone has clearly broken contracts- eg swindling pensions. They would want that person jailed and the victims compensated. That’s what they see the point if the state for: upholding contracts.
    Yet neoliberals refuse to ever take responsibility when capitalism fails, like it did in 2008. Instead they seek to attribute blame elsewhere.

    The state should be for so much more than just upholding contracts. Free-markets are prone to fail and they need to be steered and regulated. You need a thriving public sector producing wealth alongside the private sector in order to diversify the economy. Essential services should be run by the state, while financial services should be very stringently regulated.

    You claim to be sceptical but you never seem to show any of that scepticism when it comes to the free market.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Of course institutions have their faults and vested interests can arise. The answer to that though is not to allow for further private vested interests.
    Again- plenty of ‘public’ vested interests to choose from. Eg quangos etc.

    What we have, and have had for a long time is a system which in effect allows big companies to become so powerful that they can boss governments around and effectively buy favourable legislation. That's undemocratic. As mentioned, there are countless examples of big businesses lobbying governments and politicians to vote against measures which would be beneficial to the public
    Far from as simple as you’ve made it out to be: eg:https://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/11843

    Look at those examples- and tell me if they’re in ‘beneficial to the public’

    Big corporations are not capitalist or socialist but will happily exploit both when it can. Take Sweden for example (you should give that video a watch). For about eighty years under the Social Democrats the top fifty businesses were, bar one, all the same. This is where there was a happy consensus amongst politicians and big business. In the US there was far more variety.

    Again, you'll probably say 'ah but that's corporatism, not capitalism' but in reality there is no difference. Free market capitalism leads to corporatism and always has.
    I think a better word is oligarchy which is always inevitable.

    I don't think you can say that on average it creates more wealth than it loses, given that it nearly brought the entire world's economy down in 2008. Millions upon millions of people would have lost everything. Capitalism was saved by a socialist bail out.
    If capitalism is corporatism why is the bail out socialist rather than capitalist?

    As for global poverty decreasing. There is precious little evidence that, that is down to free-market economics. Such increases are often the result of technological and medical advancements within the state/ public sector, rather than the private one.

    Indeed, Ha Joon Chang demonstrates in his book rather nicely about how poorer countries have been held back by having free-market policies imposed upon them and how those which invested and spent heavily, fared better.
    Can’t comment as I haven’t read his book

    This guy has though and seems to have some problems with it:

    https://pileusblog.wordpress.com/201...d-development/

    No, you cannot. Not a depression such as the 1930s or even 2008 if the banks had not been bailed out. Spending has ALWAYS been the best way to recover.
    Do Jim Callaghan was wrong then?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/c...-spending.html

    It is.
    When you have a private sector monopoly, such as for the water or rail industries, it very much is our money being taken out for profits, rather than being invested back into the system.

    Again though, the public sector has frequently showed it is more efficient and can be just as innovative as the private sector. There seems to be this notion that the public sector is more inefficient than the private sector, despite very little evidence supporting it and plenty to counter it.



    Yet neoliberals refuse to ever take responsibility when capitalism fails, like it did in 2008. Instead they seek to attribute blame elsewhere.

    The state should be for so much more than just upholding contracts. Free-markets are prone to fail and they need to be steered and regulated. You need a thriving public sector producing wealth alongside the private sector in order to diversify the economy. Essential services should be run by the state, while financial services should be very stringently regulated.

    You claim to be sceptical but you never seem to show any of that scepticism when it comes to the free market.
    I don’t think the free market should be the basis of our society.

    I support massive restrictions on immigration

    I think that a number of areas should be fully nationalised - eg prisons.

    I support taxpayer funded projects l, museums and galleries

    I’m moderately paternalistic etc. ... I could go on
    • Community Assistant
    Online

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Again- plenty of ‘public’ vested interests to choose from. Eg quangos etc.
    I'm against outsourcing and private sector contracts for public services like Quangos. Public services should be run by the public sector, transparently without outsourcing and contracting bits out.

    I'm not sure which point you are disputing.


    Far from as simple as you’ve made it out to be: eg:https://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/11843

    Look at those examples- and tell me if they’re in ‘beneficial to the public’
    Pharmaceutical companies have lobbied against public healthcare. Gun companies have lobbied against gun control. Businesses here have lobbied against nationalising the railways.

    Any system in which big business can effectively buy legislation, as which happens under free market capitalism, is not good enough.

    Big corporations are not capitalist or socialist but will happily exploit both when it can. Take Sweden for example (you should give that video a watch). For about eighty years under the Social Democrats the top fifty businesses were, bar one, all the same. This is where there was a happy consensus amongst politicians and big business. In the US there was far more variety.
    I'm sorry but that's just not true. Big corporations are most certainly capitalist. In fact they embody capitalism more than anything else. Capitalism enables and encourages companies to become so big and so powerful that they can boss governments around and get their own way.

    Again, there is a real tendency among free marketeers to make out that the bad parts of capitalism aren't actually capitalist. Call it oligarchy, call it corporatism, call it what you want, but it's exactly what happens under capitalism. You wouldn't accept someone on the left saying Soviet Russia and China 'weren't real communism/socialism' so don't accept those on the right saying capitalism which goes bad 'isn't real capitalism'.

    In Sweden, the vats majority of workers are covered by collective bargaining agreements and wages are higher and poverty is lower.

    I think a better word is oligarchy which is always inevitable.
    Semantics. Free market Capitalism leads to a situation in which a handful of companies and individuals control such a huge amount of the country's wealth that if they fail, the global economy can come down with them.


    If capitalism is corporatism why is the bail out socialist rather than capitalist?
    The notion of spending vast sums of taxpayer money to bail out those who've lost everything is socialist. If we'd have let banks go bust, there would have been a run on the banks and they would have fallen like dominoes, taking the world's economy down with them.

    Can’t comment as I haven’t read his book
    You should. He's not even particularly left wing, he's certainly not socialist. Yet he managed rather succinctly to highlight the myths of capitalism and how it claims success for things it has no right to and avoids taking responsibility when it is clearly at fault.



    I don’t think the free market should be the basis of our society.

    I support massive restrictions on immigration

    I think that a number of areas should be fully nationalised - eg prisons.

    I support taxpayer funded projects l, museums and galleries

    I’m moderately paternalistic etc. ... I could go on

    So you accept that some things should be nationalised because the private sector is not capable of producing as good and efficient a service in a number of areas? I agree.

    Why should water be privatised? Why should energy be privatised? Why should trains be privatised? All are natural monopolies.

    When the BBC and NHS have shown that the public sector can produce a better service than the private sector, why should we not trust the public sector more?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    So you accept that some things should be nationalised because the private sector is not capable of producing as good and efficient a service in a number of areas? I agree.

    Why should water be privatised? Why should energy be privatised? Why should trains be privatised? All are natural monopolies.

    When the BBC and NHS have shown that the public sector can produce a better service than the private sector, why should we not trust the public sector more?
    Well that was a large post.

    I only want to comment on the lobbying point.

    A sensible way to deal with this is to ban all party donations and have a low set membership fee such as 5 or 10 quid to join.

    The tax payer can then fund all party’s with a single MP that field a candidate in all the mainland constituency’s to the same amount.

    A very small price to pay to get rid of lots of corruption
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • Community Assistant
    Online

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    Well that was a large post.

    I only want to comment on the lobbying point.

    A sensible way to deal with this is to ban all party donations and have a low set membership fee such as 5 or 10 quid to join.

    The tax payer can then fund all party’s with a single MP that field a candidate in all the mainland constituency’s to the same amount.

    A very small price to pay to get rid of lots of corruption
    I'm very much in favour of banning private donations over a certain amount to parties.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    I'm very much in favour of banning private donations over a certain amount to parties.
    Just go the whole hog and ban them completely, it’s undemocratic.

    Gets the conservatives away from wealthy puppets, labour away from the unions and the smaller parties get a leg up
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    Just go the whole hog and ban them completely, it’s undemocratic.

    Gets the conservatives away from wealthy puppets, labour away from the unions and the smaller parties get a leg up
    So who exactly can donate to a party?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    So who exactly can donate to a party?
    No one, that’s the point
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    No one, that’s the point
    I can't see this being abused at all...
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    I can't see this being abused at all...
    Care to elaborate?
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    Care to elaborate?
    You are going to have to get the state to stop people from coming together, pooling resources and creating their own political organisations.You will have essentially outlawed labour movements. Pretty Franco like.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    You are going to have to get the state to stop people from coming together, pooling resources and creating their own political organisations.You will have essentially outlawed labour movements. Pretty Franco like.
    I simply said the state would fund all parties equally that have one MP and field a full set of candidates on the uk mainland.....

    That means parties with no MPs have to find funding until they have one and obviously a lesser settlement has to be made for the nationalist parties outside of england.

    I thought that was obvious?
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
 
 
 
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
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    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.