Can Capitalism be positive for the public?

[Jairzinho]

There is no such thing as neoliberalism working for the top 0.1%, most economies are to a certain extent neoliberal and I don't think any are purely neoliberal. You seem to believe that there exists a set of economic beliefs which are completely wrong and fraudulent and through some kind of super conspiracy perpetrated by the 0.1% these beliefs are then imposed on the 99,9% who are completely clueless as to what is going on.

 

What?

[Guest Pistonbroke]

I remember growing up, you measured a families wealth by how many cars they had, or if they had Sky.

 

When I was a young lad it was measured on whether your father was employed or not. The majority of those in employment could feed, clothe and put a decent roof above their families heads. It may not have been enough to get on the property ladder depending on what job you were doing but council houses and privately rented houses where in abundance and all affordable. Since then various governments have a made it nigh on impossible for your normal worker to get onto the property ladder unless both partners work, put off having a family until later in life or are lucky enough to land a job with decent wages and security. Council houses are few and far between with waiting lists a mile long and most people are either priced out of renting from a private vendor or end up paying a large chunk of their income to live in a shit hole. 

[SasaS]

What?

 

I don't know what part you have a problem with, so I'll try again.

 

You cannot detect some pure neoliberal contamination at the ballot box and reject it, there are elements of it in most manifestos, or at least there has been until now. The debate between a lot of government intervention in the economy versus little intervention is by no means settled once and for all, and the fact that there is still a multitude of clever, well educated people who are genuinely trying to understand economy and come up with less government intervention as a solution cannot be attributed to the total control of the media by those 0,1% who, as you claim, are the only people benefiting from it.

[Jairzinho]

I don't know what part you have a problem with, so I'll try again.

 

 

I genuinely couldn't work out what you were on about. I'll have another go.

 

 

 

There is no such thing as neoliberalism working for the top 0.1%, most economies are to a certain extent neoliberal and I don't think any are purely neoliberal. 

 

I really don't understand what this means? Neo-liberalism isn't working for the top 0.1%? Is that your view? If not, what are you arguing? And, I agree most economies are neo-liberal, and I also agree that most economies aren't "purely" anything. So...what's your point here?

 

 

 

You seem to believe that there exists a set of economic beliefs which are completely wrong and fraudulent 

 

Well, neo-liberalism, close to purity or otherwise (you know what we're referring to, let's not have a tedious Strontium-esque semantic conversation), is a discredited economic system. I don't think anyone that is intellectually honest would have the gall to argue otherwise.

 

 

 

and through some kind of super conspiracy perpetrated by the 0.1% these beliefs are then imposed on the 99,9% who are completely clueless as to what is going on.

 

I switched off a bit here when you mentioned "super conspiracy". You've done it before, and it's really fucking boring. Are you attempting to patronise me? Perhaps simply discredit what I'm saying. Dunno, it's dull though.

 

You made a similar defence of the British public last week. Saying I should give them more credit. Why? They keep signing their own death warrants. They keep voting in parties that despise them. They keep voting in parties that support economic systems that are detrimental to their lives. They keep parroting the nonsense in the mainstream media about "maxing out the credit card" and the like. A lot of the public are fucking clueless (ignorant, not stupid), but not 99.9% obviously. That isn't what I said, and you know that. It only took 24% of the electorate to give the Tory party a majority. You don't need to have the entire nation duped. 

 

Do you really think it is conspiratorial to suggest that a mainstream media, owned by a few billionaires, might not tell the absolute truth to the general public about politics and economics? Really?

 

 

 

You cannot detect some pure neoliberal contamination at the ballot box and reject it, there are elements of it in most manifestos, or at least there has been until now. 

 

Agreed, before Corbyn was elected we'd had two decades of the two mainstream parties offering exactly the same economic answers. It was, and still is, the only "acceptable" answer. So of course many of the public are going to think it's the only acceptable answer. Presumably this is another mad conspiracy?

 

 

 

The debate between a lot of government intervention in the economy versus little intervention is by no means settled once and for all, the fact that there is still a multitude of clever, well educated people who are genuinely trying to understand economy and come up with less government intervention as a solution cannot be attributed to the total control of the media by those 0,1% who, as you claim, are the only people benefiting from it.

 

There aren't a multitude of clever, well educated people that are intellectually honest, left defending neo-liberalism. Which is completely different to what you have written. Of course there are differences in opinion as to how much intervention the government has, which is why there are perfectly legitimate criticisms of neo-liberalism from both the right and the left. 

[stringvest]

Spot on, Jair. 

[Strontium]

Suppose it's all open to interpretation but I take your point. For me, socialism is tempered by the fact you do what's best for you and what's best for the collective good, but since the dawn of human civilisation people have exchanged their labour for money/payment as their prime means of motivation, that's how I view capitalism - I do for you, you do for me.

 

I think there's a bit more to it than that. Capitalism requires a substantively free market, whereas for much of history the market has been controlled by a combination of the state and wealthy oligarchs.

[SasaS]

I genuinely couldn't work out what you were on about. I'll have another go.

 

 

I really don't understand what this means? Neo-liberalism isn't working for the top 0.1%? Is that your view? If not, what are you arguing? And, I agree most economies are neo-liberal, and I also agree that most economies aren't "purely" anything. So...what's your point here?

 

 

Well, neo-liberalism, close to purity or otherwise (you know what we're referring to, let's not have a tedious Strontium-esque semantic conversation), is a discredited economic system. I don't think anyone that is intellectually honest would have the gall to argue otherwise.

 

 

I switched off a bit here when you mentioned "super conspiracy". You've done it before, and it's really fucking boring. Are you attempting to patronise me? Perhaps simply discredit what I'm saying. Dunno, it's dull though.

 

You made a similar defence of the British public last week. Saying I should give them more credit. Why? They keep signing their own death warrants. They keep voting in parties that despise them. They keep voting in parties that support economic systems that are detrimental to their lives. They keep parroting the nonsense in the mainstream media about "maxing out the credit card" and the like. A lot of the public are fucking clueless (ignorant, not stupid), but not 99.9% obviously. That isn't what I said, and you know that. It only took 24% of the electorate to give the Tory party a majority. You don't need to have the entire nation duped. 

 

Do you really think it is conspiratorial to suggest that a mainstream media, owned by a few billionaires, might not tell the absolute truth to the general public about politics and economics? Really?

 

 

Agreed, before Corbyn was elected we'd had two decades of the two mainstream parties offering exactly the same economic answers. It was, and still is, the only "acceptable" answer. So of course many of the public are going to think it's the only acceptable answer. Presumably this is another mad conspiracy?

 

 

There aren't a multitude of clever, well educated people that are intellectually honest, left defending neo-liberalism. Which is completely different to what you have written. Of course there are differences in opinion as to how much intervention the government has, which is why there are perfectly legitimate criticisms of neo-liberalism from both the right and the left. 

 

 

You said that people should simply reject neoliberalism which benefits 0.1% in favour of Keynesianism, which presumably, benefits everyone else and, I guess, everything will be fine. I am arguing this is both simplistic and impossible, as there are very few purely neoliberal options for you to reject. Even Labour under Corbyn would probably retain some. What then?

 

RE general public discussion, your reasoning was as I recall it people didn't vote for the left because they need to work hard to survive so they do not have time to get educated and informed about the economy and issues. How about, they didn't vote for the left because the left, for what there was of it at the last general election in the UK, failed to offer new policies, faces, solutions? Emergence of people like Corbyn or Sanders in the US is a case in point, as well as the emergence of left wing forces in Greece, Spain, Portugal. If the public discourse is totally controlled as you seem to suggest, how was that possible?

 

Also, people who voted for Conservatives probably did so because they thought the Tories were doing a good job or they felt they benefited from their policies. You cannot just dismiss the general public as ignorant when it doesn't agree with your views. The emergence of Trump in the US now happened against the dominant public discourse as it did with the most of far right movements all over Europe, so people are obviously looking outside "the only acceptable answers" on various issues..

 

[Jairzinho]

You said that people should simply reject neoliberalism which benefits 0.1% in favour of Keynesianism, which presumably, benefits everyone else and, I guess, everything will be fine. I am arguing this is both simplistic and impossible, as there are very few purely neoliberal options for you to reject. Even Labour under Corbyn would probably retain some. What then?

 

 

Eh? I'm saying the two options, now, broadly speaking, are neo-liberalism and keynesianism. I've never said it "benefits everyone else" or that "everything will be fine", just that it's a significantly better option than what we have now. You appear to be arguing against something I haven't actually said. It's you that seems adamant that we deal in absolutes, not me.

 

Is the Conservative Party more or less neo liberal than the Labour Party under Corbyn? Right, so the many should vote for the latter. That is all I'm saying.

 

 

 

RE general public discussion, your reasoning was as I recall it people didn't vote for the left because they need to work hard to survive so they do not have time to get educated and informed about the economy and issues. How about, they didn't vote for the left because the left, for what there was of it at the last general election in the UK, failed to offer new policies, faces, solutions? Emergence of people like Corbyn or Sanders in the US is a case in point, as well as the emergence of left wing forces in Greece, Spain, Portugal. If the public discourse is totally controlled as you seem to suggest, how was that possible?

 

 

No disagreement from me regarding Labour's failure to offer anything to the electorate at the last two elections.

 

The emergence of Corbyn, Sanders, and left wing parties in Southern Europe, is in no small part because of people's rejection of mainstream media. They're born out of movements that all point to a rejection of mainstream media. One of the most left leaning newspapers in the UK, the Guardian, was truly pathetic in their attempts to attack and smear Corbyn. 

 

 

 

Also, people who voted for Conservatives probably did so because they thought the Tories were doing a good job or they felt they benefited from their policies. You cannot just dismiss the general public as ignorant when it doesn't agree with your views. 

 

Some will have done. Many will have done because Labour maxed out da credit card, and because Miliband can't eat sandwiches properly. And because his dad is a UK hating Communist. Lots of people thought the Tories were doing a good job because they were told, relentlessly, that the Tories were doing a good job.

 

 

 

The emergence of Trump in the US now happened against the dominant public discourse as it did with the most of far right movements all over Europe, so people are obviously looking outside "the only acceptable answers" on various issues..

 

They certainly are, and the result of decades of moving the acceptable part of the political spectrum to the right allows Trump, Le Pen, etc, to gain traction. It allows them some validity. We've reached the point where Sanders, advocating centre left social democracy is banded together with Trump. A fascist.

 

As much as the media does have a lot of power, when "centrist" politics offers people nothing they look for answers elsewhere. You can't have bread and circuses without bread.

[Gym Beglin]

Also, people who voted for Conservatives probably did so because they thought the Tories were doing a good job or they felt they benefited from their policies. You cannot just dismiss the general public as ignorant when it doesn't agree with your views. The emergence of Trump in the US now happened against the dominant public discourse as it did with the most of far right movements all over Europe, so people are obviously looking outside "the only acceptable answers" on various issues..

 

 

Before I start this, I just want to say that I'm not looking for a 'fight' or a slanging match on politics.  It's far too easy for people to give up on political discussion by dragging it into some macho mic-dropping contest, then we all lose.

 

So, let's start from the beginning, the Tories winning the election with 24% of the population voting for them.  That, in and of itself, was fucking appalling and should not have happened.  Had the vote been conducted in the same way as the PCC election, ie, people select a first and second choice, then the Labour defectors who votes Green, or were duped into UKIP, would have voted Labour and walked it.  The Conservatives used the age-old tactic of 'divide and conquer', which is why we see so many Tory cunts in UKIP and the Green Party and in the Lib Dems.  It's all a ruse to dilute the Labour voting pool.

 

Let's also factor in that the Tories cheated at the last election by spending more on their campaigns than other parties.  

 

They then changed the democratic system in their wake to extend periods of office from 4 to 5 years, and also then continued a prolonged period of austerity in the face of damning criticism from world economists, with no effect on the growing debt, and cut the throats of local governments who can do nothing but outsource services to the highest bidder, and these people are capitalist cunts who vote Tory, part of the 24%.  Those 24% also include a vast amount of the elderly who see Conservatism as an 'acceptable' version of racism and imperialism, because they fucking love that, because they're old and we can;t possibly be offended by old people can we...

 

 

The emergence of Trump is deep-seated in fear.  The American news is constantly winding the public up about terror and about potential war, and Trump is their warlord of choice.

[SasaS]

Eh? I'm saying the two options, now, broadly speaking, are neo-liberalism and keynesianism. I've never said it "benefits everyone else" or that "everything will be fine", just that it's a significantly better option than what we have now. You appear to be arguing against something I haven't actually said. It's you that seems adamant that we deal in absolutes, not me.

 

Is the Conservative Party more or less neo liberal than the Labour Party under Corbyn? Right, so the many should vote for the latter. That is all I'm saying.

 

 

No disagreement from me regarding Labour's failure to offer anything to the electorate at the last two elections.

 

The emergence of Corbyn, Sanders, and left wing parties in Southern Europe, is in no small part because of people's rejection of mainstream media. They're born out of movements that all point to a rejection of mainstream media. One of the most left leaning newspapers in the UK, the Guardian, was truly pathetic in their attempts to attack and smear Corbyn. 

 

 

Some will have done. Many will have done because Labour maxed out da credit card, and because Miliband can't eat sandwiches properly. And because his dad is a UK hating Communist. Lots of people thought the Tories were doing a good job because they were told, relentlessly, that the Tories were doing a good job.

 

 

They certainly are, and the result of decades of moving the acceptable part of the political spectrum to the right allows Trump, Le Pen, etc, to gain traction. It allows them some validity. We've reached the point where Sanders, advocating centre left social democracy is banded together with Trump. A fascist.

 

As much as the media does have a lot of power, when "centrist" politics offers people nothing they look for answers elsewhere. You can't have bread and circuses without bread.

Hm, absolutes, I'd say we are not even in the same league, I see you as a true Jairzinho, whilst I am maybe stealing a wage in the Greek second division on a fake Brazilian passport.

 

 

 

[Gym Beglin]

Krishnan Guru-MurthyVerified account@krishgm · 58m

We'd love to ask the Conservatives why they tried to stop the #electionexpenses investigation in South Thanet. A chair is waiting #c4news

[Gym Beglin]

Tamara CohenVerified account@tamcohen · 1h

Judge in Kent on Tory election expenses said claims "far reaching" and consequences of conviction include 'results being declared void'

[Gym Beglin]

Job RabkinVerified account@jobrabkin · 41m

#electionexpenses judge: "investigations taking place not just in S Thanet but across country.. are on an unprecedented scale." #c4news

[Gym Beglin]

Money is great, when it doesn't define you.  

 

What we have here is a political party totally motivated by acquiring personal wealth, it's capitalism, and it's fucking ugly and it's fucking this country up.

[SasaS]

Before I start this, I just want to say that I'm not looking for a 'fight' or a slanging match on politics.  It's far too easy for people to give up on political discussion by dragging it into some macho mic-dropping contest, then we all lose.

 

So, let's start from the beginning, the Tories winning the election with 24% of the population voting for them.  That, in and of itself, was fucking appalling and should not have happened.  Had the vote been conducted in the same way as the PCC election, ie, people select a first and second choice, then the Labour defectors who votes Green, or were duped into UKIP, would have voted Labour and walked it.  The Conservatives used the age-old tactic of 'divide and conquer', which is why we see so many Tory cunts in UKIP and the Green Party and in the Lib Dems.  It's all a ruse to dilute the Labour voting pool.

 

Let's also factor in that the Tories cheated at the last election by spending more on their campaigns than other parties.  

 

They then changed the democratic system in their wake to extend periods of office from 4 to 5 years, and also then continued a prolonged period of austerity in the face of damning criticism from world economists, with no effect on the growing debt, and cut the throats of local governments who can do nothing but outsource services to the highest bidder, and these people are capitalist cunts who vote Tory, part of the 24%.  Those 24% also include a vast amount of the elderly who see Conservatism as an 'acceptable' version of racism and imperialism, because they fucking love that, because they're old and we can;t possibly be offended by old people can we...

 

 

The emergence of Trump is deep-seated in fear.  The American news is constantly winding the public up about terror and about potential war, and Trump is their warlord of choice.

My point is, when you lose an election or fail repeatedly for years to get your message across, the analysis should usually focus on you or the message, not the general public as the old biddies that don't know better. 

 

[Strontium]

Money is great, when it doesn't define you.  

 

What we have here is a political party totally motivated by acquiring personal wealth, it's capitalism, and it's fucking ugly and it's fucking this country up.

 

I think a list of the organisms on the planet that aren't engaged in efforts to improve their personal circumstances would be a very short one.

[Stu Monty]

I think a list of the organisms on the planet that aren't engaged in efforts to improve their personal circumstances would be a very short one.

 

There are plenty of different ways to improve your personal circumstances that don't involve being totally focused on acquiring personal wealth.

 

Socialism is self-interested too. It's just a different strategy.

[Section_31]

There are plenty of different ways to improve your personal circumstances that don't involve being totally focused on acquiring personal wealth.

 

Socialism is self-interested too. It's just a different strategy.

Aye.

 

Ironically, most of the ageing Tory voters are still reaping the rewards of being raised under a post war socialist government.

 

Two false hips and a triple bypass, retired at 58, job for life, free university education and a great pension, house all paid for let's fuck off to cornwall and enjoy living longer and better than any generation in the history of planet earth. I'd call that very self interested.

 

Funnily enough none of this will be around when the Tory onslaught is over.

[Brownie]

Spot on Section.

[Priory Doctor]

Aye.

 

Ironically, most of the ageing Tory voters are still reaping the rewards of being raised under a post war socialist government.

 

Two false hips and a triple bypass, retired at 58, job for life, free university education and a great pension, house all paid for let's fuck off to cornwall and enjoy living longer and better than any generation in the history of planet earth. I'd call that very self interested.

 

Funnily enough none of this will be around when the Tory onslaught is over.

Excellent points- well made.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Can Capitalism be positive for the public?

 

Yes.

Capitalism is a good way of delivering the stuff that people want.  Some of the shiny things are nice.  Unfortunately, the system incentivises companies to generate (or artificially inflate) demand for stuff, making people insatiable for more and more... stuff.

 

Capitalism is terrible at delivering what people need - health, housing, education, water, sanitation, transport systems, sustainable energy, safety, security, a livable environment, self-esteem and mental wellbeing, basic levels of nutrition, etc.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

For the love of God, can Section please read some Marx.

http://www.rd.com/funny-stuff/groucho-marx-quotes/

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Capitalism is a good way of delivering the stuff that people want.  Some of the shiny things are nice.  Unfortunately, the system incentivises companies to generate (or artificially inflate) demand for stuff, making people insatiable for more and more... stuff.

 

Capitalism is terrible at delivering what people need - health, housing, education, water, sanitation, transport systems, sustainable energy, safety, security, a livable environment, self-esteem and mental wellbeing, basic levels of nutrition, etc.

The question was 'can capitalism be a positive for the public'. The answer is a demonstrable yes. Without getting into specific examples, there's not much more than can really be talked about. It's a b iAd church with lots of different variables. But can it. Yes, it can.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

I think a list of the organisms on the planet that aren't engaged in efforts to improve their personal circumstances would be a very short one.

I don't think anybody has suggested otherwise.  However, there have been (in the UK) and there still are (elsewhere in the world) functioning models of capitalism which are not driven 100% by the relentless, remorseless accumulation of private wealth.

 

The type of capitalism which continues to dominate UK (and US) politics is ugly, insane, undemocratic, joyless and dangerous.  That type of capitalism can never be positive for the public.

[Section_31]

The question was 'can capitalism be a positive for the public'. The answer is a demonstrable yes. Without getting into specific examples, there's not much more than can really be talked about. It's a b iAd church with lots of different variables. But can it. Yes, it can.

 

Some kind of competition is good. You only have to look at what happened to the space race once the Soviets collapsed, now the yanks aren't arsed, The problem is, this brand of capitalism is anti competition. Google dominate the search engine market, Amazon dominate the online shopping market, the big three supermarkets dominate everything from groceries to petrol. We bought a couple of grand's worth of white goods from Curry's last year and they'd only knock 40 quid off the bill, the reason being - according to the bloke - since Comet closed they had no competition. 

 

Turn the clock back 15 years you had Comet, Curry's and Dixons, Play and Amazon, HMV, Virgin and Our Price, Dillons and Waterstones, Argos and Index, Gateway, Safeway etc etc. Corporations destroy or absorb each other, become bigger and more bloated and then consolidate at your expense. 

 

Every bloke you see now is wearing Next clothes because there's fuck all else to buy, every town centre and retail park looks exactly the same. 

 

If capitalism worked the way its supporters said it did, it would be the exact opposite, there would be new stores and new products springing up left right and centre giving you more choice and cheaper deals. It's a closed shop disguised as a free market, but absolutely everything is already sown up.