Got a spare €400m ?
Comments
-
Rolf F wrote:VTech wrote:Having said that, my mother who died of pancreatic cancer a week before Xmas was an example of how two faced humans are as I would have given anything for her to have been cured.
No, that's not really being two faced - that's being human. People living longer isn't necessarily a problem - or rather it shouldn't be. Obviously, whilst life expectation increases it is a form of population growth but it's self limiting (at least in the West) as so far the maximum possible life man can attain doesn't seem to increase - just the numbers of people who get that far.
Of course, there are all sorts of problems re working life, economics, the lack of concern people have for their pensions etc that will make a lot of affluent people today have utterly miserable old ages but that problem isn't in the scale of overpopulation as a whole. Be glad you are alive today. This might be as good as it gets!
Scary thought to go to sleep on
Living MY dream.0 -
VTech wrote:The odd thing is, I actually strongly believe that humanity is doomed due to over breeding and people living too long. The cure of so many ills is actually incredibly counter productive.
Having said that, my mother who died of pancreatic cancer a week before Xmas was an example of how two faced humans are as I would have given anything for her to have been cured.
VTech you have written some awful nonsense in the past, but the above quoted post is very insightful and I 100% agree with it.0 -
4/5ths of the worlds population are poor. Their environmental footprint is minimal. The remaining 1/5th uses 90% of the worlds resources. There is plenty to go around except that the 1/5th of the population are greedy and consuming too much.
No reduction of the worlds population (unless the 1/5th are reduced) is going to change the inbalance of the consumption of resources. It is the extravagance of the West and the burgeoning Tiger/Eastern Economies that is the driver of this consumption. It is within our hands to curb but so long as there are those espousing the virtues of our indulgence and the apparent 'freedom' attached to it, there is little chance.
So this is where that argument comes full circle - the bias distribution of wealth and power.
It is a lame argument to accept on the one hand that there is serious flaws in the rate of consumption of raw materials but then say the current form of global capitalism is good.
It is also a lame argument to constantly bang on about how communism and enforced austerity by some form of dictatorship is not the answer. That is like saying I cannot paint my house black so i will paint it white, where there is a myriad of colours to choose from and a myriad of solutions. It is also lame because in the arguments presented so far by the supporters of the status quo, cannot seem to come up with a better, fairer system of capitalism, despite some admittance that there are things wrong with it and it is easy to criticise socialism and present it as flawed - A glaring insecurity in one's capitalistic views.
If socialism is flawed then so is capitalism. If the stakes are the human race, would you still choose capitalism in it's current form?seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
I think a touch of empiricism, such as the net revenue of tax flows, is required to truly access the impact of said policy. Rather than endless stories about the wealthy leaving France, let's see some hard data about its affect on total net income. Historically, even within our globalised age, you find that capital doesn't shift anywhere near as much as they tell you it will shift due to tax hikes. So much capital is held in offshore equities, you also find that a lot of what is kept onshore is tied up in service based sectors - hard to uproot and move anyway.bernithebiker wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:Rolf, see my post a few pages back. The number of French people living in London now is in the region of 300,000 - 400,000.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18234930
Absolutely, and it's a disaster for France that the government refuses to acknowledge, and that will take years, if not decades to put right (to attract those people back again).
Rolf, in France now, it's got to the point where if you're well off you face handing the vast majority of that over to the state in tax. There are new, huge capital gains taxes, the famous wealth tax (up to 3% of everything you own, every year, which was doubled exceptionally in 2012), the 75% tax band, etc. etc. MORE THAN 100% tax is quite possible and frequent.
So you have a choice; Stay and see the hard-earned* wealth of several generations whittled away, or leave. Trust me, many are packing up.
We would too, were it not our kids being at exam stage at school.
*in some cases!
@ Pinarello001 - Phew back on track to your usual excellence
, I thought for a moment earlier in the thread you were siding towards theories of over population. We have an abundance of resources as a planet, just poor systems of distributing them. Population size is not creating scarcity, it is capitalism that stymies fair distribution. Nor is population growth a threat to our abundance of resources, the general scientific consensus is that the global population shall level out between 10 and 11 billion, the growth we are seeing now is just the lag of the baby boomers as they grow older and live longer, average number of children per family has dropped to even 2.2 in India. The human geographer Danny Dorling has some fantastic work on this.
To those caught up arguing that poverty, capitalism and inequality are human nature, despite the vast majority of human existence having taken place as collective groups: Your social darwinism belongs in an age of colonialism and slavery, and such arguments of natural social hierarchy have been used to excuse the most despicable genocides in history. Poverty is not natural, it is a consequence of capitalism and can be eradicated.
To those still asking for a workable alternative to capitalism, have a read into anarchism. If you can get beyond the basic stigmas surrounding it, you'll realise that it has nothing to do with chaos and is far more concerned with promoting direct democracy and accessibility for all, whilst dismantling illegitimate power and hierarchical control, coercion and domination. I was going to post a link to a lecture by Noam Chomsky but I think this speech by Charlie Chaplin from 'The Great Dictator' sums is up better in 3 minutes than anything ever could, I implore everyone to hear it at least oncehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WibmcsEGLKo 0 -
d87francis wrote:We have an abundance of resources as a planet, just poor systems of distributing them.
Depends on what you call an abundance. Currently it is estimated that about 6.5 percent of all humans who have ever lived are alive today. And the population grows and develops rapidly. Over what period are things sustainable? Who knows what we will be able to do with what in the future but we play a risky game relying on future technology to dig us out of the hole we are falling down.Faster than a tent.......0 -
d87francis wrote:Rather than endless stories about the wealthy leaving France, let's see some hard data about its affect on total net income.
Ok, how about this?
Today France announced it's most recent budget deficit - about 3 billion Euros worse than expected.
Why? Main reason = lower than expected tax take, and this despite tax rates having increased.
Conclusion? Too much tax kills tax, and people are buggering off.
If you lived here you would see it and hear it everywhere. A recent poll suggested that over 50% of 25 something's are considering emigrating. The ones staying are those on the extremely cushty benefits, those leaving are the ones fed up with paying for those benefits, and who despair of a future in a country that crushes entrepreneurialism.
RE Pinarello;Are we consuming resources at an unsustainable rate? YES.
Is it driven by capitalism gone stupid? TO SOME EXTENT, YES.
Are the super rich too rich? YES
Should one individual be worth £1bn+ when there are 1000's of individuals living on the absolute breadline? NO
Are the super rich there by the virtue of their exploitative activities? SOME, NOT ALL.
Will the unsustainable consumption of resourses lead to the downfall of mankind? POSSIBLY
If yes, is it then in all of our interest to curb the obscene excesses of the mega rich? YES, BUT IT WON"T SAVE THE WORLD.
Capitalism is far from perfect, but it's a damn sight better than socialism. What Hollande is currently doing to France will, I feel, be taught for years to come as a perfect example of how socialism does not work.
To improve things;
1. Tighten up tax rules to stop 'optimisation'.
2. Keep executive pay in check.
3. Make sure non-doms pay tax in UK on income/gains made in the UK.0 -
bernithebiker wrote:A recent poll suggested that over 50% of 25 something's are considering emigrating. The ones staying are those on the extremely cushty benefits, those leaving are the ones fed up with paying for those benefits, and who despair of a future in a country that crushes entrepreneurialism.
To be fair, what that really means is that 50% of 25 somethings aren't finding life as easy as they expected and are a bit cheesed off and told the pollsters that they are thinking of emigrating. In reality, only a tiny few will do it and the vast majority who say they are thinking of leaving are talking bull. Anyone can say they are considering something - how many get further than that? Even as far as looking at a web page on the subject?
What you need is the real numbers - compared to other nations. Who is leaving and who is arriving etc etc.Faster than a tent.......0 -
Rolf F wrote:bernithebiker wrote:A recent poll suggested that over 50% of 25 something's are considering emigrating. The ones staying are those on the extremely cushty benefits, those leaving are the ones fed up with paying for those benefits, and who despair of a future in a country that crushes entrepreneurialism.
To be fair, what that really means is that 50% of 25 somethings aren't finding life as easy as they expected and are a bit cheesed off and told the pollsters that they are thinking of emigrating. In reality, only a tiny few will do it and the vast majority who say they are thinking of leaving are talking bull. Anyone can say they are considering something - how many get further than that? Even as far as looking at a web page on the subject?
What you need is the real numbers - compared to other nations. Who is leaving and who is arriving etc etc.
True, but these are only available for 2010 so far, which showed a marked increase on 2009. Given that things have got SIGNIFICANTLY worse, the 2012 figures cannot be good.
It is a known fact that for some time now, Greek, Spanish, Irish and Portugese youngsters have been leaving in search of work. So it's not hard to imagine that the same is now happening in France.
Decent jobs are NOT easy to find in France, and to get into the public sector you need tons of qualifications and you go up against thousands of others over months if not years. Starting your own business is fraught with complications, rules and taxes.
And yet, there are jobs aplenty in Canada, China, Australia, and even the UK.
What would you do?
(N.B. Those arriving into France are generally retired, looking for the good life by the sea/countryside).0 -
Some nice general theory, that is all.d87francis wrote:[I think a touch of empiricism, such as the net revenue of tax flows, is required to truly access the impact of said policy. Rather than endless stories about the wealthy leaving France, let's see some hard data about its affect on total net income. Historically, even within our globalised age, you find that capital doesn't shift anywhere near as much as they tell you it will shift due to tax hikes. So much capital is held in offshore equities, you also find that a lot of what is kept onshore is tied up in service based sectors - hard to uproot and move anyway.
@ Pinarello001 - Phew back on track to your usual excellence , I thought for a moment earlier in the thread you were siding towards theories of over population. We have an abundance of resources as a planet, just poor systems of distributing them. Population size is not creating scarcity, it is capitalism that stymies fair distribution. Nor is population growth a threat to our abundance of resources, the general scientific consensus is that the global population shall level out between 10 and 11 billion, the growth we are seeing now is just the lag of the baby boomers as they grow older and live longer, average number of children per family has dropped to even 2.2 in India. The human geographer Danny Dorling has some fantastic work on this.
To those caught up arguing that poverty, capitalism and inequality are human nature, despite the vast majority of human existence having taken place as collective groups: Your social darwinism belongs in an age of colonialism and slavery, and such arguments of natural social hierarchy have been used to excuse the most despicable genocides in history. Poverty is not natural, it is a consequence of capitalism and can be eradicated.
To those still asking for a workable alternative to capitalism, have a read into anarchism. If you can get beyond the basic stigmas surrounding it, you'll realise that it has nothing to do with chaos and is far more concerned with promoting direct democracy and accessibility for all, whilst dismantling illegitimate power and hierarchical control, coercion and domination. I was going to post a link to a lecture by Noam Chomsky but I think this speech by Charlie Chaplin from 'The Great Dictator' sums is up better in 3 minutes than anything ever could, I implore everyone to hear it at least oncehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WibmcsEGLKo
BTW I've worked in multinationals for over 20 years and have seen and been party to decisions related to tax and where/how to invest/fund etc. I know from direct experience that capital (both manufacturing and services) is far more mobile and in far larger amounts than your idealogical assumptions would have you believe. Unless you have evidene otherwise?
The Chaplin speech is full of nice intention but a more than tad short on specifics. Actually using a speech from a comedian from the last century is quite apt for socialism. Outdated and laughable.
I said before and I'll say it again - if these ideas worked they would be used. They're not. For a good reason. you could set up a political party to promote your minority views but it would be you flogging the dead horse.
And I'll ask the question again - set out how you would do things better in enough detail for us to decide if it's really any good, or stop moaning. Just think, you have a golden chance to enlight me on how fantastic this as yet unused form of socialist anarchy is. Or else we can laugh at how unworkable, impractical and contrary to human nature your proposals are. Either way, you'll make my day
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
pinarello001 wrote:Having read Milton Freidman's Capitalism and Freedom at least 5 times,
Need to move on. Amazon voucher...0 -
Or we can laugh at how in thrall to your capitalist masters you truly are that you feel the need to justify their rapacious parasitism. (Unless you are one yourself, then feel free to be insulted by being called a parasiteStevo 666 wrote:
Some nice general theory, that is all.d87francis wrote:[I think a touch of empiricism, such as the net revenue of tax flows, is required to truly access the impact of said policy. Rather than endless stories about the wealthy leaving France, let's see some hard data about its affect on total net income. Historically, even within our globalised age, you find that capital doesn't shift anywhere near as much as they tell you it will shift due to tax hikes. So much capital is held in offshore equities, you also find that a lot of what is kept onshore is tied up in service based sectors - hard to uproot and move anyway.
@ Pinarello001 - Phew back on track to your usual excellence , I thought for a moment earlier in the thread you were siding towards theories of over population. We have an abundance of resources as a planet, just poor systems of distributing them. Population size is not creating scarcity, it is capitalism that stymies fair distribution. Nor is population growth a threat to our abundance of resources, the general scientific consensus is that the global population shall level out between 10 and 11 billion, the growth we are seeing now is just the lag of the baby boomers as they grow older and live longer, average number of children per family has dropped to even 2.2 in India. The human geographer Danny Dorling has some fantastic work on this.
To those caught up arguing that poverty, capitalism and inequality are human nature, despite the vast majority of human existence having taken place as collective groups: Your social darwinism belongs in an age of colonialism and slavery, and such arguments of natural social hierarchy have been used to excuse the most despicable genocides in history. Poverty is not natural, it is a consequence of capitalism and can be eradicated.
To those still asking for a workable alternative to capitalism, have a read into anarchism. If you can get beyond the basic stigmas surrounding it, you'll realise that it has nothing to do with chaos and is far more concerned with promoting direct democracy and accessibility for all, whilst dismantling illegitimate power and hierarchical control, coercion and domination. I was going to post a link to a lecture by Noam Chomsky but I think this speech by Charlie Chaplin from 'The Great Dictator' sums is up better in 3 minutes than anything ever could, I implore everyone to hear it at least oncehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WibmcsEGLKo
BTW I've worked in multinationals for over 20 years and have seen and been party to decisions related to tax and where/how to invest/fund etc. I know from direct experience that capital (both manufacturing and services) is far more mobile and in far larger amounts than your idealogical assumptions would have you believe. Unless you have evidene otherwise?
The Chaplin speech is full of nice intention but a more than tad short on specifics. Actually using a speech from a comedian from the last century is quite apt for socialism. Outdated and laughable.
I said before and I'll say it again - if these ideas worked they would be used. They're not. For a good reason. you could set up a political party to promote your minority views but it would be you flogging the dead horse.
And I'll ask the question again - set out how you would do things better in enough detail for us to decide if it's really any good, or stop moaning. Just think, you have a golden chance to enlight me on how fantastic this as yet unused form of socialist anarchy is. Or else we can laugh at how unworkable, impractical and contrary to human nature your proposals are. Either way, you'll make my day). I don't think you would want to live in an entirely capitalist system any more than you would want to live in Soviet Russia yet you feel you are somehow a capitalist warrior...
To be fair, having spoken to Russians in their 60s who lived in Russia, they remembered Soviet days fondly from the perspective of the capitalist years of the early 2000s. Certainly they did not personally suffer in the camps and were no doubt wearing rose tinted spectacles so they passed over the queues for food as the system collapsed, but 60s and 70s in USSR were far from being a disaster, people were well fed, happy, USSR went toe to toe with USA and history has given us a certainty of their fate in hindsight that never existed at the time.0 -
Define parasite...is this based on earnings or job type? How do I know if I am one? Or whether I have a master - what if I'm self employed?nathancom wrote:Or we can laugh at how in thrall to your capitalist masters you truly are that you feel the need to justify their rapacious parasitism. (Unless you are one yourself, then feel free to be insulted by being called a parasite). I don't think you would want to live in an entirely capitalist system any more than you would want to live in Soviet Russia yet you feel you are somehow a capitalist warrior... Not a warrior really, just reasonably happy with the current set up, although it needs a bit of the leftie crap removing
Odd then that communism collapsed in the Soviet union? Sure Russia isn't a model country and never was but a country that has gone from communism to a completely economic different model will take time to sort itself out, like China. Presumably the ones you spoke to were ones that did better than others in a supposedly egalitarian system? Very 'Animal Farm'...nathancom wrote:To be fair, having spoken to Russians in their 60s who lived in Russia, they remembered Soviet days fondly from the perspective of the capitalist years of the early 2000s. Certainly they did not personally suffer in the camps and were no doubt wearing rose tinted spectacles so they passed over the queues for food as the system collapsed, but 60s and 70s in USSR were far from being a disaster, people were well fed, happy, USSR went toe to toe with USA and history has given us a certainty of their fate in hindsight that never existed at the time."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I watched Fiddler on the Roof over xmas, great movie.Living MY dream.0
-
Interesting how attitudes change, in my time in the Former Soviet Union in the 90s and early 00s there was no such sentiment whilst the memories were more vivid.0
-
How have I missed this thread over the last few days ... Priceless. Why didn't somebody tell me?0
-
@ Stevo (it usually is).
Nathancon wasn't espousing the wonderful virtues of Communism, he was simply describing how despite all the failings of communism, people were well fed and happy. They no longer have the oppression of that regime but they are now in a rat race, same as the rest of us.
Why can't you accept that capitalism has gone too far and that the quantity of people who are impoverished as a direct result of exploitation of people and resources is unacceptable?
FWIW, I have never spouted socialism. I think that political ideology is dead. I also think that mixed economies are a better solution than the bias, regressively taxed economy that we exist in.
Example:
Mick and Eileen bought a house in the sixties for 16k. It is a terraced 3 bed house in Oxford. They both worked menial jobs. One as a Janitor in an Oxford college, the other as a cleaner at various establishments. They pay £1600 per year council tax on their property. Next door is a dot com couple. They bought their house for £270k. They pay £1600 per year council tax. They drive an M3 BMW and a range Rover. Why should M and E pay the same council tax with huge differences in incomes to their neighbours? Why should they pay the same when the value of their property is way above what they paid (in real terms) through no fault of their own? Why should people like that have to consider moving/downgrading because the cost of living for them is too much?
If your capitalism is so good and effective, why are the levels of poverty, homelessness and mental health problems going through the roof?
Why is this bunch of Tories not addressing the biggest crisis facing the UK - housing?
Why has this fantastic capitalism not delivered the revenues so that the NHS and Education is in great shape? (the NHS is struggling and we are 22nd in the international league table for school attainment)?
Why - because the taxation system is bias, because the pool of revenue is too small for proper investment. Why? because the rich in this country are not paying enough or paying nothing. On top of that UK PLC is up for sale to the highest bidder because we have failed to invest in the foundations and the very fabric of our society has been systematically neglected through chronic under investment.
This 'capitalism' suits you but only if you are earning a good wage and living comfortably. Come along and meet the casualties of this handicapped horse race at my recycling project, then you may see a different side to things.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Pinarello001 is spot on, I don't think any of us are supporting state socialism of the 20th century, I believe Nathancon was just espousing the rhetoric that history is written by the victors: the failures of state socialism (and they are many and atrocious) have been remembered and the successes forgotten, in the same manner that many of the failures of capitalism are ignored (there are perhaps more than state socialism) or blamed on other causalities.
The argument that capitalism is the best we've got/experienced so let's stick with it, is a simple persons analysis. During the middle ages towards early mercantilism did people say feudalism's the best we've got so let's stick with it? How do you measure the success of capitalism, and who benefits, certainly not the majority under this very free-market neoliberal model. Economic growth is meaningless alongside mass inequality, look at Brazil in recent years it's a BRIC country that's experienced steady growth yet suffers from crippling inequality that has sparked riots due to the level of discontent.
We have had many examples of anarchism and different forms of socialism that are closer to anarchy and more democratic such as Bolivarianism (for some reason the relatively successful history of socialism in South America is often ignored and the way it was crushed by the US and UK). Anarchy has a very successful recent history in southern Mexico, read about the Zapatista movement http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/mexico-s-zapatista-movement-transforming-lives-20-years-on-1.1655083 There is a fantastic sign at the entrance to one of the Zapatista controlled villages "You are in Zapatista territory in rebellion: here the people rule and the government must obey."
There is also a fantastic example of anarchism in Spain during the civil war, there are a wealth of books, films and documentaries on the period, a few that stand out to me are "Land and Freedom" by Ken Loach, "Homage to Catalonia" by George Orwell, and Living Utopia:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0XhRnJz8fU Temporary anarchist or autonomous zones may have been quashed by external imperial forces with their own ideologies, but they certainly did not fail in organising and democratising their communities. Why should we judge the merits of an ideology or form of organising by the military might of its supporters, surely ideology based on reason, science and compassion, would be much more sensible than ideology based on imperial might.0 -
Whereabouts were you? The older generations in Russia still provide a significant following for the Communist party, which still polls decently at elections. The 90s and 00s were particularly unpleasant in Russia and many were nostalgic for better times in the age of Oligarchs. The implementation of Capitalism in Russia didn't create a wonderland, the very opposite with the worst attributes of system being brought across, disdain for the poor, piles of crappy goods being flogged, the rush for status expressed through conspicuous expenditure.florerider wrote:Interesting how attitudes change, in my time in the Former Soviet Union in the 90s and early 00s there was no such sentiment whilst the memories were more vivid.
What was good about the country was the infrastructure left over from the communist era, the transport networks, the universities, the old food markets (really spectacular array of fruits and vegetables from the South). This is from the perspective of living there for a year in 2003/04 and travelling extensively.
And going back last year? It is a different place again, Western style supermarkets are entrenched, people are generally much better off and happier again but there is a shallowness to the lives being led now, one dominated by things not ideas, dominated by consuming and expressing that consumption as publicly as possible. That is what Capitalism offers, a merry-go-round of buying shiny things that make you happier for a bit and allow you to surround yourself in a bubble of property that distracts you from the real world. For Russia and other economies that rely upon basic commodities there is a risk that economic misery is around the corner, not dissimilar to what was seen before, as their manufacturing base has disappeared - what survived the fall of Communism did not survive the flood of cheaper foreign goods.
I am not trying to eulogise Communism. The Russian experience is of mass murder, repression, gulag and militaristic expansionism. I have walked past the Lubyanka where thousands were tortured and purged. Yet despite this, the country did function and in its heyday of 60s and 70s, the age of Russian space travel, many were well fed, happy, had good jobs and people weren't rapaciously chasing money. And in the end it failed not because of the economic model but because of imperial overstretch. Still, the repression of the rights of the individual for the sake of the collective is a dangerous creed as it will always lead to abuse on account of human nature.
So, we basically have two crap economic models, one that enthrals its citizens via political mechanisms and the other by economic and consumerist mechanisms. What is more, it is scarcely surprising that the capitalist elite espouses an individualistic model since it leaves the workers divided and disunited, unable to support one another. And the Right wing press, owned by that same ruling elite, have spread fear of any form of collectivism, especially the Trade Unions, because again they are a barrier to dividing and ruling the workers.
I believe that Germany has a strong TU movement with representation on the board of companies, leading to better worker rights, shorter hours and higher productivity in a more egalitarian society. This another example where collectivism tempers capitalism to create a better, fairer society. A mixed model is clearly the best current system - as most of us probably don't want to end up like USA.0 -
If Russia was so great (and thereby by definition East Germany), why were so many of these 'happy' people desperate to risk machine guns, barbed wire and dogs to cross into West Germany?0
-
Well done for not reading what I wrote and trying to be a smart arse.bernithebiker wrote:If Russia was so great (and thereby by definition East Germany), why were so many of these 'happy' people desperate to risk machine guns, barbed wire and dogs to cross into West Germany?0 -
nathancom wrote:
Whereabouts were you? The older generations in Russia still provide a significant following for the Communist party, which still polls decently at elections. The 90s and 00s were particularly unpleasant in Russia and many were nostalgic for better times in the age of Oligarchs. The implementation of Capitalism in Russia didn't create a wonderland, the very opposite with the worst attributes of system being brought across, disdain for the poor, piles of crappy goods being flogged, the rush for status expressed through conspicuous expenditure.florerider wrote:Interesting how attitudes change, in my time in the Former Soviet Union in the 90s and early 00s there was no such sentiment whilst the memories were more vivid.
What was good about the country was the infrastructure left over from the communist era, the transport networks, the universities, the old food markets (really spectacular array of fruits and vegetables from the South). This is from the perspective of living there for a year in 2003/04 and travelling extensively.
And going back last year? It is a different place again, Western style supermarkets are entrenched, people are generally much better off and happier again but there is a shallowness to the lives being led now, one dominated by things not ideas, dominated by consuming and expressing that consumption as publicly as possible. That is what Capitalism offers, a merry-go-round of buying shiny things that make you happier for a bit and allow you to surround yourself in a bubble of property that distracts you from the real world. For Russia and other economies that rely upon basic commodities there is a risk that economic misery is around the corner, not dissimilar to what was seen before, as their manufacturing base has disappeared - what survived the fall of Communism did not survive the flood of cheaper foreign goods.
I am not trying to eulogise Communism. The Russian experience is of mass murder, repression, gulag and militaristic expansionism. I have walked past the Lubyanka where thousands were tortured and purged. Yet despite this, the country did function and in its heyday of 60s and 70s, the age of Russian space travel, many were well fed, happy, had good jobs and people weren't rapaciously chasing money. And in the end it failed not because of the economic model but because of imperial overstretch. Still, the repression of the rights of the individual for the sake of the collective is a dangerous creed as it will always lead to abuse on account of human nature.
So, we basically have two crap economic models, one that enthrals its citizens via political mechanisms and the other by economic and consumerist mechanisms. What is more, it is scarcely surprising that the capitalist elite espouses an individualistic model since it leaves the workers divided and disunited, unable to support one another. And the Right wing press, owned by that same ruling elite, have spread fear of any form of collectivism, especially the Trade Unions, because again they are a barrier to dividing and ruling the workers.
I believe that Germany has a strong TU movement with representation on the board of companies, leading to better worker rights, shorter hours and higher productivity in a more egalitarian society. This another example where collectivism tempers capitalism to create a better, fairer society. A mixed model is clearly the best current system - as most of us probably don't want to end up like USA.
Where was I?
In the FSU, Kazakstan and Chechnia, that was in Grozny when it existed, not after it was bombed to hell by the Russians. Remember seeing it on the TV later and identifying burnt out appartment blocks where people I knew stayed and where I used to go and eat with them. Also remember watching the women pull milk churns to the sole water supply in the villages to get water.
I have seen less food in markets in cities in Kazakstan than a stall at a farmers market here would hold, and that was for 300,000 odd people for that day. Had to be endured to be believed.
In the Eastern block, Bulgaria, Romania, Poland, East Germany, Hungary, Poland, Lithuania.
All both before and after the fall of the iron curtain.
I would still be careful about nostalgia for communism, it forgets a lot of stuff that wasn't just bad, it was unbearable.0 -
I don't have any nostalgia for a system that relied on political coercion to establish its economic model, one of forced collectivism, one that led to the death of 50 million through war, famine, purges and labour camps, or one that murdered individuals for writing books that did not tow the party line. It was an authoritarian abomination, however, to paint the 70 years of Soviet rule as one long queue for food is simply not true.florerider wrote:nathancom wrote:
Whereabouts were you? The older generations in Russia still provide a significant following for the Communist party, which still polls decently at elections. The 90s and 00s were particularly unpleasant in Russia and many were nostalgic for better times in the age of Oligarchs. The implementation of Capitalism in Russia didn't create a wonderland, the very opposite with the worst attributes of system being brought across, disdain for the poor, piles of crappy goods being flogged, the rush for status expressed through conspicuous expenditure.florerider wrote:Interesting how attitudes change, in my time in the Former Soviet Union in the 90s and early 00s there was no such sentiment whilst the memories were more vivid.
What was good about the country was the infrastructure left over from the communist era, the transport networks, the universities, the old food markets (really spectacular array of fruits and vegetables from the South). This is from the perspective of living there for a year in 2003/04 and travelling extensively.
And going back last year? It is a different place again, Western style supermarkets are entrenched, people are generally much better off and happier again but there is a shallowness to the lives being led now, one dominated by things not ideas, dominated by consuming and expressing that consumption as publicly as possible. That is what Capitalism offers, a merry-go-round of buying shiny things that make you happier for a bit and allow you to surround yourself in a bubble of property that distracts you from the real world. For Russia and other economies that rely upon basic commodities there is a risk that economic misery is around the corner, not dissimilar to what was seen before, as their manufacturing base has disappeared - what survived the fall of Communism did not survive the flood of cheaper foreign goods.
I am not trying to eulogise Communism. The Russian experience is of mass murder, repression, gulag and militaristic expansionism. I have walked past the Lubyanka where thousands were tortured and purged. Yet despite this, the country did function and in its heyday of 60s and 70s, the age of Russian space travel, many were well fed, happy, had good jobs and people weren't rapaciously chasing money. And in the end it failed not because of the economic model but because of imperial overstretch. Still, the repression of the rights of the individual for the sake of the collective is a dangerous creed as it will always lead to abuse on account of human nature.
So, we basically have two crap economic models, one that enthrals its citizens via political mechanisms and the other by economic and consumerist mechanisms. What is more, it is scarcely surprising that the capitalist elite espouses an individualistic model since it leaves the workers divided and disunited, unable to support one another. And the Right wing press, owned by that same ruling elite, have spread fear of any form of collectivism, especially the Trade Unions, because again they are a barrier to dividing and ruling the workers.
I believe that Germany has a strong TU movement with representation on the board of companies, leading to better worker rights, shorter hours and higher productivity in a more egalitarian society. This another example where collectivism tempers capitalism to create a better, fairer society. A mixed model is clearly the best current system - as most of us probably don't want to end up like USA.
Where was I?
In the FSU, Kazakstan and Chechnia, that was in Grozny when it existed, not after it was bombed to hell by the Russians. Remember seeing it on the TV later and identifying burnt out appartment blocks where people I knew stayed and where I used to go and eat with them. Also remember watching the women pull milk churns to the sole water supply in the villages to get water.
I have seen less food in markets in cities in Kazakstan than a stall at a farmers market here would hold, and that was for 300,000 odd people for that day. Had to be endured to be believed.
In the Eastern block, Bulgaria, Romania, Poland, East Germany, Hungary, Poland, Lithuania.
All both before and after the fall of the iron curtain.
I would still be careful about nostalgia for communism, it forgets a lot of stuff that wasn't just bad, it was unbearable.
Individuals did take pride in the Soviet state, it's ideals and aims, even those who didn't had no freedom of dissent. People did achieve many great things within science, arts, music, engineering, architecture, literature during the Soviet regime and it was a more productive Russia than the one we see now, which is little more than an oil company. There are many paradoxes in history.
Even today, the communist party in Russia polled 17% in the last presidential election and 23% in the parliamentary elections. Many individuals lived good, comfortable lives during the communist period, especially compared to the ones they have lived during the downfall of communism and since then under a capitalist/mafia state.0 -
Yes, I think he would...0
-
Erm... So up to speed now. So if I'm right, you worthy minds have spent the best part of ten days debating the rights and wrongs of society (agin) and slagging off vtech (Again) till your fingers are raw and bleeding?
So would the time have been better spent getting off your sweet butts, getting out there and making a small difference in your local community? :-)0 -
nathancom wrote:I don't have any nostalgia for a system that relied on political coercion to establish its economic model, one of forced collectivism, one that led to the death of 50 million through war, famine, purges and labour camps, or one that murdered individuals for writing books that did not tow the party line. It was an authoritarian abomination, however, to paint the 70 years of Soviet rule as one long queue for food is simply not true.
Individuals did take pride in the Soviet state, it's ideals and aims, even those who didn't had no freedom of dissent. People did achieve many great things within science, arts, music, engineering, architecture, literature during the Soviet regime and it was a more productive Russia than the one we see now, which is little more than an oil company. There are many paradoxes in history.
Even today, the communist party in Russia polled 17% in the last presidential election and 23% in the parliamentary elections. Many individuals lived good, comfortable lives during the communist period, especially compared to the ones they have lived during the downfall of communism and since then under a capitalist/mafia state.
I suggest you take a look at the 2nd World War, where the Russian leadership had a staggering disregard for the lives of it's people, and literally threw them at the German guns. So many millions died, it makes the war in Western Europe look like a picnic.
And by the way, stay calm, no need to go spitting bile at people like me and SteveO that disagree with you.0 -
Morning Mr. Ppinarello001 wrote:@ Stevo (it usually is).. Next round, ding ding...
I was pushing a point about socialism and you - it's easy to argue the extreme ends of the spectrum which are to a large extent theoretical. What we're debating is where on the scale is the best balance. IMO we're already in a mixed economy given the size of the state, level of tax and level of regulation and intervention in many areas. disagree that taxation is regressive - for the vast majority it is very much progressive. Increasing scales of tax for income, stamp duty etc for example.pinarello001 wrote:Nathancon wasn't espousing the wonderful virtues of Communism, he was simply describing how despite all the failings of communism, people were well fed and happy. They no longer have the oppression of that regime but they are now in a rat race, same as the rest of us.
Why can't you accept that capitalism has gone too far and that the quantity of people who are impoverished as a direct result of exploitation of people and resources is unacceptable?
FWIW, I have never spouted socialism. I think that political ideology is dead. I also think that mixed economies are a better solution than the bias, regressively taxed economy that we exist in.
On the council tax point I am torn between 2 differing principles - 1 that tax should be based on ability to pay and 2 that people should have a responsibility to pay for key basics otherwise you get the 'free bar' syndrome - usually seen when people who contribute very little lobby to have more services as it's no cost to them. A lot of these are essential services that are covered by council tax. After all you don't walk into Tesco to buy a tin of beans and get asked how much you earn before they decide what to charge you? I think there is a safety net for those who genuinely can't afford it. And it is easy to collect. The alternative is to increase general taxation but then it becomes complex and easier to avoid...swings and roundabouts.pinarello001 wrote:Example:
Mick and Eileen bought a house in the sixties for 16k. It is a terraced 3 bed house in Oxford. They both worked menial jobs. One as a Janitor in an Oxford college, the other as a cleaner at various establishments. They pay £1600 per year council tax on their property. Next door is a dot com couple. They bought their house for £270k. They pay £1600 per year council tax. They drive an M3 BMW and a range Rover. Why should M and E pay the same council tax with huge differences in incomes to their neighbours? Why should they pay the same when the value of their property is way above what they paid (in real terms) through no fault of their own? Why should people like that have to consider moving/downgrading because the cost of living for them is too much?
The other big issue here is whether the cost base of councils is right. I reckon they do far too much stuff that is not necessary. Just look at some of the pointless excuses for public sector jobs that turn up in the Guardian jobs pages - it's enough to make you cry knowing you have to pay for crap like that. They should stick to the basics and we'd all be better off.
Got any stats for those claims? I've already shown you evidence for how much tax the top 1% and the biggest coorporates pay - did you look? On the corporate side I see this stuff first hand and I've already explained how raising tax rates is counter productive - google the 'Laffer Curve'. Closing loopholes is nice in theory but tax law is so frikkin complex it's practically impossible - I can block out the view of the bloke at the desk opposite me with the pile of just the UK primary tax legislationpinarello001 wrote:If your capitalism is so good and effective, why are the levels of poverty, homelessness and mental health problems going through the roof?
Why is this bunch of Tories not addressing the biggest crisis facing the UK - housing?
Why has this fantastic capitalism not delivered the revenues so that the NHS and Education is in great shape? (the NHS is struggling and we are 22nd in the international league table for school attainment)?
Why - because the taxation system is bias, because the pool of revenue is too small for proper investment. Why? because the rich in this country are not paying enough or paying nothing. On top of that UK PLC is up for sale to the highest bidder because we have failed to invest in the foundations and the very fabric of our society has been systematically neglected through chronic under investment. BTW tax as a % of GDP is close to 40% - that's huge, too large IMO. Unfortunately Governments aren't good investors generally.
I've said before the taxation of those at the very top is a balancing act given the mobility of them and their capital. Killing the goose that lays the Golden Egg is the danger - one persons 'parasite' is another persons entrepreneur/investor/job creator - which is what this country needs if we want to make it better for people at all levels. Some people on here get a bit emotive when it comes to people that they perceive to be screwing people over - the socialist conspiracy theory that there is some shady network of oligarchs plotting to shaft the general population is quite amusing though.
Housing - supply and demand. Even governments struggle to control supply and demand in many areas of the economy/life, especially where the supply of land is something that nobody can do much about.
As for chronic underinvestment - Mr. Brown found out that simply chucking money at problems doesn't alway work. Up for sale? Well UK Plc also is a massive outward investor on overseas economies and that contributes enormously. It would be hypocritical to say that people/companies can't invest in/buy into UK plc while doing the same in the other direction ourselves. Open markets in that respect benefit us all.
You know where I'm from originally - not exactly poshville. But one day I might take you up on that as part of me putting a bit back apart from paying silly amounts of tax. Have to say I admire what you do on that front and it's the right thing for several reasons 8)pinarello001 wrote:This 'capitalism' suits you but only if you are earning a good wage and living comfortably. Come along and meet the casualties of this handicapped horse race at my recycling project, then you may see a different side to things."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I was only 'spitting bile' at you, not the other guy, since you are asking irrelevant questions based on a belief that I am espousing something I have explicitly stated that I am not and given the reasons why not. You are either being voluntarily stupid or involuntarily stupid. Soviet conduct in WW2 and the almost endless crimes against the Russian people perpetrated by the Stalinist regime is well known by almost everyone. This has no bearing on whether the Soviet economy was functioning in the 1960s and 1970s, and whether it provides any counterbalance to Capitalist methods for recycling wealth.bernithebiker wrote:nathancom wrote:I don't have any nostalgia for a system that relied on political coercion to establish its economic model, one of forced collectivism, one that led to the death of 50 million through war, famine, purges and labour camps, or one that murdered individuals for writing books that did not tow the party line. It was an authoritarian abomination, however, to paint the 70 years of Soviet rule as one long queue for food is simply not true.
Individuals did take pride in the Soviet state, it's ideals and aims, even those who didn't had no freedom of dissent. People did achieve many great things within science, arts, music, engineering, architecture, literature during the Soviet regime and it was a more productive Russia than the one we see now, which is little more than an oil company. There are many paradoxes in history.
Even today, the communist party in Russia polled 17% in the last presidential election and 23% in the parliamentary elections. Many individuals lived good, comfortable lives during the communist period, especially compared to the ones they have lived during the downfall of communism and since then under a capitalist/mafia state.
I suggest you take a look at the 2nd World War, where the Russian leadership had a staggering disregard for the lives of it's people, and literally threw them at the German guns. So many millions died, it makes the war in Western Europe look like a picnic.
And by the way, stay calm, no need to go spitting bile at people like me and SteveO that disagree with you.
I am perfectly calm but telling me that Stalinist regime did bad stuff is like telling me the world is round...irrelevant and obvious.0 -
The world is what?seanoconn - gruagach craic!0
-
I agree on the council tax issue, we pay a huge sum and don't get lighting, roads or other things other get for paying half or a quarter of what we do.
Having said that, we knew the cost before we moved here like most on the forum.Living MY dream.0 -
nathancom wrote:
I was only 'spitting bile' at you, not the other guy, since you are asking irrelevant questions based on a belief that I am espousing something I have explicitly stated that I am not and given the reasons why not. You are either being voluntarily stupid or involuntarily stupid. Soviet conduct in WW2 and the almost endless crimes against the Russian people perpetrated by the Stalinist regime is well known by almost everyone. This has no bearing on whether the Soviet economy was functioning in the 1960s and 1970s, and whether it provides any counterbalance to Capitalist methods for recycling wealth.bernithebiker wrote:nathancom wrote:I don't have any nostalgia for a system that relied on political coercion to establish its economic model, one of forced collectivism, one that led to the death of 50 million through war, famine, purges and labour camps, or one that murdered individuals for writing books that did not tow the party line. It was an authoritarian abomination, however, to paint the 70 years of Soviet rule as one long queue for food is simply not true.
Individuals did take pride in the Soviet state, it's ideals and aims, even those who didn't had no freedom of dissent. People did achieve many great things within science, arts, music, engineering, architecture, literature during the Soviet regime and it was a more productive Russia than the one we see now, which is little more than an oil company. There are many paradoxes in history.
Even today, the communist party in Russia polled 17% in the last presidential election and 23% in the parliamentary elections. Many individuals lived good, comfortable lives during the communist period, especially compared to the ones they have lived during the downfall of communism and since then under a capitalist/mafia state.
I suggest you take a look at the 2nd World War, where the Russian leadership had a staggering disregard for the lives of it's people, and literally threw them at the German guns. So many millions died, it makes the war in Western Europe look like a picnic.
And by the way, stay calm, no need to go spitting bile at people like me and SteveO that disagree with you.
I am perfectly calm but telling me that Stalinist regime did bad stuff is like telling me the world is round...irrelevant and obvious.
Well, maybe could you refrain from spitting bile at me then?
I am simply pointing out that Soviet behaviour during WWII and subsequently during the Cold War, and the fact those that could were fleeing the country, does not point to a happy, functioning, socio-economic model. If Soviet scientists / athletes etc. were so happy and patriotic, why did so many defect the moment they touched down on Western soil?
And if the riches were being so nicely spread amongst the population, why were the vast majority of them living in poverty? (or relative poverty compared to Western lifestyles).0
