This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Jeremy Corbyn
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
jamiemartin721  Reading 14 Aug 15 1.10pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Johnny Eagles at 14 Aug 2015 11.54am
Quote Stirlingsays at 14 Aug 2015 11.42am
Quote Johnny Eagles at 14 Aug 2015 10.53am
Oh please. We're all against war, poverty and injustice. That is not an anti-capitalist position. Monopoly, oligopoly, corruption, price-fixing, cartels, graft, kleptocracy, these are a bigger cause of the stuff you mention than capitalism. That and, say, trade barriers erected by the likes of, er, the European Union which likes to protect its comfortable left-wing middle class from genuine competition.
The very fact that state regulation of the banking sector was heavily relaxed led to a disaster that still threatens the world even now. Capitalism without regulation 'eats itself'.....That is recognised by many economists. Pure self interest ends up drawing up the very ladder that supports itself. The state doesn't need to run the economy as such.....But it definitely needs to assert the rules by which it can operate......And punish actions that endanger it. What worked out well in 2008? The pre-2008 'heavily relaxed' financial regulation is not a good example of a free market. Governments were in the financial crisis up to their eyeballs. Who encouraged home-ownership among people who couldn't afford mortgages? Who guaranteed deposits up to a hundred grand? Out of the "heads we win, tails you lose" bets made by big banks, who fulfilled the "tails you lose" bit? "Pure self-interest" can either support the market economy (cf. Adam Smith) or it can work against it (eg, price-fixing and monopolies). Capitalism, defined as "people interacting in a market economy" does not "eat itself". It's greed, corruption and graft that eats up all the good stuff. The alternative, a planned economy, tends to encourage those things to the detriment of everyone. Actually I think you hit the nail on the head with the last paragraph, systems that rely on individual good judgement, personal ethics and individual morality are doomed to failure and exploitation. Abuses of capitalism don't occur because of capitalism (similarly for socialism) but because of the convenience by which you can justify those abuses, or disguise them. I've always believed that the best system lies somewhere between capitalism and socialism, where in the production of profit and wealth is curtailed by the necessity and benefit of all parties involved (ie that in return for cheaper child labour in the third world, those same companies should be spending a fix share of the profit generated on providing those same children with a western education - I've long be a fan of the approach of the John Lewis partnership towards its employees). Rather than maybe spending most of it on advertising, marketing, branding and sponsorship.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| jamiemartin721 Reading 14 Aug 15 1.17pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Hoof Hearted at 14 Aug 2015 11.10am
Quote Johnny Eagles at 14 Aug 2015 10.53am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 14 Aug 2015 10.13am
Quote Johnny Eagles at 14 Aug 2015 10.03am
If you include people acting within a market economy then you could include most of the socialist countries. I'm not sure its true on a global scale either that people in sweatshops etc are empowered by stitching trainers or Disney toys, esp when they are children who instead of being schooled are producing goods. Nor those empowered by an inability to afford HIV medication, or those dying of preventable disease, unclean drinking water or suffering from malnutirion. When you step outside the first world, capitalism isn't empowering people so much as enslaving them. The generation of wealth for its own sake, is a problem. Captialism needs regulation and control so that it serves the interests of everyone involved, otherwise it creates unrest, dissatisfaction, insurrection and tyranny. Oh please. We're all against war, poverty and injustice. That is not an anti-capitalist position. Monopoly, oligopoly, corruption, price-fixing, cartels, graft, kleptocracy, these are a bigger cause of the stuff you mention than capitalism. That and, say, trade barriers erected by the likes of, er, the European Union which likes to protect its comfortable left-wing middle class from genuine competition. What does "capitalism needs regulation and control" mean? You need the state for all kinds of stuff but it shouldn't be running the economy. And where it does so - and this was matt_himself's point - it tends to impoverish rather than empower people.
Why would you be sure? My politics run very anti-authoritarian. Or is it the normal assumption that any one who isn't right wing, must be a hardline authoritarian communist / Stalinist. I'm more interested in Kropotkin, Goldman, Thoreau and Chomsky; Anarchism and the freedom, well being and opportunities of each individual citizen.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
 fed up eagle Between Horley, Surrey and Preston... 14 Aug 15 1.29pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
We live in a democracy, so if the good people/members of the Labour party want Jeremy Corbyn then they should have him.....ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!!
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| fed up eagle Between Horley, Surrey and Preston... 14 Aug 15 1.35pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 14 Aug 2015 1.17pm
Quote Hoof Hearted at 14 Aug 2015 11.10am
Quote Johnny Eagles at 14 Aug 2015 10.53am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 14 Aug 2015 10.13am
Quote Johnny Eagles at 14 Aug 2015 10.03am
If you include people acting within a market economy then you could include most of the socialist countries. I'm not sure its true on a global scale either that people in sweatshops etc are empowered by stitching trainers or Disney toys, esp when they are children who instead of being schooled are producing goods. Nor those empowered by an inability to afford HIV medication, or those dying of preventable disease, unclean drinking water or suffering from malnutirion. When you step outside the first world, capitalism isn't empowering people so much as enslaving them. The generation of wealth for its own sake, is a problem. Captialism needs regulation and control so that it serves the interests of everyone involved, otherwise it creates unrest, dissatisfaction, insurrection and tyranny. Oh please. We're all against war, poverty and injustice. That is not an anti-capitalist position. Monopoly, oligopoly, corruption, price-fixing, cartels, graft, kleptocracy, these are a bigger cause of the stuff you mention than capitalism. That and, say, trade barriers erected by the likes of, er, the European Union which likes to protect its comfortable left-wing middle class from genuine competition. What does "capitalism needs regulation and control" mean? You need the state for all kinds of stuff but it shouldn't be running the economy. And where it does so - and this was matt_himself's point - it tends to impoverish rather than empower people.
Why would you be sure? My politics run very anti-authoritarian. Or is it the normal assumption that any one who isn't right wing, must be a hardline authoritarian communist / Stalinist. I'm more interested in Kropotkin, Goldman, Thoreau and Chomsky; Anarchism and the freedom, well being and opportunities of each individual citizen.
In fairness to you I think you make reasoned arguments and make some good points. You seem pretty neutral to me and are able to look at things without bias. Just an observation.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| leggedstruggle Croydon 14 Aug 15 1.46pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote nickgusset at 14 Aug 2015 11.19am
Quote Hoof Hearted at 14 Aug 2015 11.10am
Quote Johnny Eagles at 14 Aug 2015 10.53am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 14 Aug 2015 10.13am
Quote Johnny Eagles at 14 Aug 2015 10.03am
If you include people acting within a market economy then you could include most of the socialist countries. I'm not sure its true on a global scale either that people in sweatshops etc are empowered by stitching trainers or Disney toys, esp when they are children who instead of being schooled are producing goods. Nor those empowered by an inability to afford HIV medication, or those dying of preventable disease, unclean drinking water or suffering from malnutirion. When you step outside the first world, capitalism isn't empowering people so much as enslaving them. The generation of wealth for its own sake, is a problem. Captialism needs regulation and control so that it serves the interests of everyone involved, otherwise it creates unrest, dissatisfaction, insurrection and tyranny. Oh please. We're all against war, poverty and injustice. That is not an anti-capitalist position. Monopoly, oligopoly, corruption, price-fixing, cartels, graft, kleptocracy, these are a bigger cause of the stuff you mention than capitalism. That and, say, trade barriers erected by the likes of, er, the European Union which likes to protect its comfortable left-wing middle class from genuine competition. What does "capitalism needs regulation and control" mean? You need the state for all kinds of stuff but it shouldn't be running the economy. And where it does so - and this was matt_himself's point - it tends to impoverish rather than empower people.
1. Oh Corbyn will be a disaster, Well go back to the 70's. - is there any evidence for this or is it lazy conjecture. 2. Oh you're a lefty? You must want to live in North Korea as you agree with totalitarianism. Have you got any evidence that socialist economies work. Can you point to any non-capitalist socialist country that has not been an authoritarian dictatorship?
mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 14 Aug 15 1.48pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote leggedstruggle at 14 Aug 2015 1.46pm
Quote nickgusset at 14 Aug 2015 11.19am
Quote Hoof Hearted at 14 Aug 2015 11.10am
Quote Johnny Eagles at 14 Aug 2015 10.53am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 14 Aug 2015 10.13am
Quote Johnny Eagles at 14 Aug 2015 10.03am
If you include people acting within a market economy then you could include most of the socialist countries. I'm not sure its true on a global scale either that people in sweatshops etc are empowered by stitching trainers or Disney toys, esp when they are children who instead of being schooled are producing goods. Nor those empowered by an inability to afford HIV medication, or those dying of preventable disease, unclean drinking water or suffering from malnutirion. When you step outside the first world, capitalism isn't empowering people so much as enslaving them. The generation of wealth for its own sake, is a problem. Captialism needs regulation and control so that it serves the interests of everyone involved, otherwise it creates unrest, dissatisfaction, insurrection and tyranny. Oh please. We're all against war, poverty and injustice. That is not an anti-capitalist position. Monopoly, oligopoly, corruption, price-fixing, cartels, graft, kleptocracy, these are a bigger cause of the stuff you mention than capitalism. That and, say, trade barriers erected by the likes of, er, the European Union which likes to protect its comfortable left-wing middle class from genuine competition. What does "capitalism needs regulation and control" mean? You need the state for all kinds of stuff but it shouldn't be running the economy. And where it does so - and this was matt_himself's point - it tends to impoverish rather than empower people.
1. Oh Corbyn will be a disaster, Well go back to the 70's. - is there any evidence for this or is it lazy conjecture. 2. Oh you're a lefty? You must want to live in North Korea as you agree with totalitarianism. Have you got any evidence that socialist economies work. Can you point to any non-capitalist socialist country that has not been an authoritarian dictatorship? Has Corbyn said he wants a socialist state? No. What he has said is that he wants those that caused the financial crash to pay for it, not people living on the breadline.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Sedlescombe Sedlescombe 14 Aug 15 1.51pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote leggedstruggle at 14 Aug 2015 1.46pm
Quote nickgusset at 14 Aug 2015 11.19am
Quote Hoof Hearted at 14 Aug 2015 11.10am
Quote Johnny Eagles at 14 Aug 2015 10.53am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 14 Aug 2015 10.13am
Quote Johnny Eagles at 14 Aug 2015 10.03am
If you include people acting within a market economy then you could include most of the socialist countries. I'm not sure its true on a global scale either that people in sweatshops etc are empowered by stitching trainers or Disney toys, esp when they are children who instead of being schooled are producing goods. Nor those empowered by an inability to afford HIV medication, or those dying of preventable disease, unclean drinking water or suffering from malnutirion. When you step outside the first world, capitalism isn't empowering people so much as enslaving them. The generation of wealth for its own sake, is a problem. Captialism needs regulation and control so that it serves the interests of everyone involved, otherwise it creates unrest, dissatisfaction, insurrection and tyranny. Oh please. We're all against war, poverty and injustice. That is not an anti-capitalist position. Monopoly, oligopoly, corruption, price-fixing, cartels, graft, kleptocracy, these are a bigger cause of the stuff you mention than capitalism. That and, say, trade barriers erected by the likes of, er, the European Union which likes to protect its comfortable left-wing middle class from genuine competition. What does "capitalism needs regulation and control" mean? You need the state for all kinds of stuff but it shouldn't be running the economy. And where it does so - and this was matt_himself's point - it tends to impoverish rather than empower people.
1. Oh Corbyn will be a disaster, Well go back to the 70's. - is there any evidence for this or is it lazy conjecture. 2. Oh you're a lefty? You must want to live in North Korea as you agree with totalitarianism. Have you got any evidence that socialist economies work. Can you point to any non-capitalist socialist country that has not been an authoritarian dictatorship?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| fed up eagle Between Horley, Surrey and Preston... 14 Aug 15 1.52pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote leggedstruggle at 14 Aug 2015 1.46pm
Quote nickgusset at 14 Aug 2015 11.19am
Quote Hoof Hearted at 14 Aug 2015 11.10am
Quote Johnny Eagles at 14 Aug 2015 10.53am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 14 Aug 2015 10.13am
Quote Johnny Eagles at 14 Aug 2015 10.03am
If you include people acting within a market economy then you could include most of the socialist countries. I'm not sure its true on a global scale either that people in sweatshops etc are empowered by stitching trainers or Disney toys, esp when they are children who instead of being schooled are producing goods. Nor those empowered by an inability to afford HIV medication, or those dying of preventable disease, unclean drinking water or suffering from malnutirion. When you step outside the first world, capitalism isn't empowering people so much as enslaving them. The generation of wealth for its own sake, is a problem. Captialism needs regulation and control so that it serves the interests of everyone involved, otherwise it creates unrest, dissatisfaction, insurrection and tyranny. Oh please. We're all against war, poverty and injustice. That is not an anti-capitalist position. Monopoly, oligopoly, corruption, price-fixing, cartels, graft, kleptocracy, these are a bigger cause of the stuff you mention than capitalism. That and, say, trade barriers erected by the likes of, er, the European Union which likes to protect its comfortable left-wing middle class from genuine competition. What does "capitalism needs regulation and control" mean? You need the state for all kinds of stuff but it shouldn't be running the economy. And where it does so - and this was matt_himself's point - it tends to impoverish rather than empower people.
1. Oh Corbyn will be a disaster, Well go back to the 70's. - is there any evidence for this or is it lazy conjecture. 2. Oh you're a lefty? You must want to live in North Korea as you agree with totalitarianism. Have you got any evidence that socialist economies work. Can you point to any non-capitalist socialist country that has not been an authoritarian dictatorship?[/quote]
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 14 Aug 15 1.53pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Sedlescombe at 14 Aug 2015 1.51pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 14 Aug 2015 1.46pm
Quote nickgusset at 14 Aug 2015 11.19am
Quote Hoof Hearted at 14 Aug 2015 11.10am
Quote Johnny Eagles at 14 Aug 2015 10.53am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 14 Aug 2015 10.13am
Quote Johnny Eagles at 14 Aug 2015 10.03am
If you include people acting within a market economy then you could include most of the socialist countries. I'm not sure its true on a global scale either that people in sweatshops etc are empowered by stitching trainers or Disney toys, esp when they are children who instead of being schooled are producing goods. Nor those empowered by an inability to afford HIV medication, or those dying of preventable disease, unclean drinking water or suffering from malnutirion. When you step outside the first world, capitalism isn't empowering people so much as enslaving them. The generation of wealth for its own sake, is a problem. Captialism needs regulation and control so that it serves the interests of everyone involved, otherwise it creates unrest, dissatisfaction, insurrection and tyranny. Oh please. We're all against war, poverty and injustice. That is not an anti-capitalist position. Monopoly, oligopoly, corruption, price-fixing, cartels, graft, kleptocracy, these are a bigger cause of the stuff you mention than capitalism. That and, say, trade barriers erected by the likes of, er, the European Union which likes to protect its comfortable left-wing middle class from genuine competition. What does "capitalism needs regulation and control" mean? You need the state for all kinds of stuff but it shouldn't be running the economy. And where it does so - and this was matt_himself's point - it tends to impoverish rather than empower people.
1. Oh Corbyn will be a disaster, Well go back to the 70's. - is there any evidence for this or is it lazy conjecture. 2. Oh you're a lefty? You must want to live in North Korea as you agree with totalitarianism. Have you got any evidence that socialist economies work. Can you point to any non-capitalist socialist country that has not been an authoritarian dictatorship?
Well put.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| leggedstruggle Croydon 14 Aug 15 1.57pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Sedlescombe at 14 Aug 2015 1.51pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 14 Aug 2015 1.46pm
Quote nickgusset at 14 Aug 2015 11.19am
Quote Hoof Hearted at 14 Aug 2015 11.10am
Quote Johnny Eagles at 14 Aug 2015 10.53am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 14 Aug 2015 10.13am
Quote Johnny Eagles at 14 Aug 2015 10.03am
If you include people acting within a market economy then you could include most of the socialist countries. I'm not sure its true on a global scale either that people in sweatshops etc are empowered by stitching trainers or Disney toys, esp when they are children who instead of being schooled are producing goods. Nor those empowered by an inability to afford HIV medication, or those dying of preventable disease, unclean drinking water or suffering from malnutirion. When you step outside the first world, capitalism isn't empowering people so much as enslaving them. The generation of wealth for its own sake, is a problem. Captialism needs regulation and control so that it serves the interests of everyone involved, otherwise it creates unrest, dissatisfaction, insurrection and tyranny. Oh please. We're all against war, poverty and injustice. That is not an anti-capitalist position. Monopoly, oligopoly, corruption, price-fixing, cartels, graft, kleptocracy, these are a bigger cause of the stuff you mention than capitalism. That and, say, trade barriers erected by the likes of, er, the European Union which likes to protect its comfortable left-wing middle class from genuine competition. What does "capitalism needs regulation and control" mean? You need the state for all kinds of stuff but it shouldn't be running the economy. And where it does so - and this was matt_himself's point - it tends to impoverish rather than empower people.
1. Oh Corbyn will be a disaster, Well go back to the 70's. - is there any evidence for this or is it lazy conjecture. 2. Oh you're a lefty? You must want to live in North Korea as you agree with totalitarianism. Have you got any evidence that socialist economies work. Can you point to any non-capitalist socialist country that has not been an authoritarian dictatorship?
I agree with you. Having a better benefits system within a capitalist economy is not socialism - the country is still essentially capitalist. What I am trying to put to bed is full-blown socialism as a viable system. Even China is now a capitalist economy. Unfortunately it still has the trappings of authoritarian socialism but hopeful as the people get prosper they will form unions etc and push for personal and political freedom.
mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Sedlescombe Sedlescombe 14 Aug 15 1.58pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote nickgusset at 14 Aug 2015 1.53pm
Quote Sedlescombe at 14 Aug 2015 1.51pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 14 Aug 2015 1.46pm
Quote nickgusset at 14 Aug 2015 11.19am
Quote Hoof Hearted at 14 Aug 2015 11.10am
Quote Johnny Eagles at 14 Aug 2015 10.53am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 14 Aug 2015 10.13am
Quote Johnny Eagles at 14 Aug 2015 10.03am
If you include people acting within a market economy then you could include most of the socialist countries. I'm not sure its true on a global scale either that people in sweatshops etc are empowered by stitching trainers or Disney toys, esp when they are children who instead of being schooled are producing goods. Nor those empowered by an inability to afford HIV medication, or those dying of preventable disease, unclean drinking water or suffering from malnutirion. When you step outside the first world, capitalism isn't empowering people so much as enslaving them. The generation of wealth for its own sake, is a problem. Captialism needs regulation and control so that it serves the interests of everyone involved, otherwise it creates unrest, dissatisfaction, insurrection and tyranny. Oh please. We're all against war, poverty and injustice. That is not an anti-capitalist position. Monopoly, oligopoly, corruption, price-fixing, cartels, graft, kleptocracy, these are a bigger cause of the stuff you mention than capitalism. That and, say, trade barriers erected by the likes of, er, the European Union which likes to protect its comfortable left-wing middle class from genuine competition. What does "capitalism needs regulation and control" mean? You need the state for all kinds of stuff but it shouldn't be running the economy. And where it does so - and this was matt_himself's point - it tends to impoverish rather than empower people.
1. Oh Corbyn will be a disaster, Well go back to the 70's. - is there any evidence for this or is it lazy conjecture. 2. Oh you're a lefty? You must want to live in North Korea as you agree with totalitarianism. Have you got any evidence that socialist economies work. Can you point to any non-capitalist socialist country that has not been an authoritarian dictatorship?
Well put. I know this will irritate the f*** out of everyone but Sweden Germany and France also take in more asylum seekers than we do
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 14 Aug 15 1.59pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote leggedstruggle at 14 Aug 2015 1.57pm
Quote Sedlescombe at 14 Aug 2015 1.51pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 14 Aug 2015 1.46pm
Quote nickgusset at 14 Aug 2015 11.19am
Quote Hoof Hearted at 14 Aug 2015 11.10am
Quote Johnny Eagles at 14 Aug 2015 10.53am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 14 Aug 2015 10.13am
Quote Johnny Eagles at 14 Aug 2015 10.03am
If you include people acting within a market economy then you could include most of the socialist countries. I'm not sure its true on a global scale either that people in sweatshops etc are empowered by stitching trainers or Disney toys, esp when they are children who instead of being schooled are producing goods. Nor those empowered by an inability to afford HIV medication, or those dying of preventable disease, unclean drinking water or suffering from malnutirion. When you step outside the first world, capitalism isn't empowering people so much as enslaving them. The generation of wealth for its own sake, is a problem. Captialism needs regulation and control so that it serves the interests of everyone involved, otherwise it creates unrest, dissatisfaction, insurrection and tyranny. Oh please. We're all against war, poverty and injustice. That is not an anti-capitalist position. Monopoly, oligopoly, corruption, price-fixing, cartels, graft, kleptocracy, these are a bigger cause of the stuff you mention than capitalism. That and, say, trade barriers erected by the likes of, er, the European Union which likes to protect its comfortable left-wing middle class from genuine competition. What does "capitalism needs regulation and control" mean? You need the state for all kinds of stuff but it shouldn't be running the economy. And where it does so - and this was matt_himself's point - it tends to impoverish rather than empower people.
1. Oh Corbyn will be a disaster, Well go back to the 70's. - is there any evidence for this or is it lazy conjecture. 2. Oh you're a lefty? You must want to live in North Korea as you agree with totalitarianism. Have you got any evidence that socialist economies work. Can you point to any non-capitalist socialist country that has not been an authoritarian dictatorship?
I agree with you. Having a better benefits system within a capitalist economy is not socialism - the country is still essentially capitalist. What I am trying to put to bed is full-blown socialism as a viable system. Even China is now a capitalist economy. Unfortunately it still has the trappings of authoritarian socialism but hopeful as the people get prosper they will form unions etc and push for personal and political freedom.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.