The banker loving, baby-eating Tory party thread (regenerated)

[Shaw_nuff]

Capitalism has been failing (dieing) for at least a century since 1917. Nobody suddenly thought 'wouldn't it be nice to have a revolution' in Russia. No, living conditions were unbearable. The need for greater profits leading to lower wages, leading to nobody having money to spend, leading to lower wages etc.

Then the rest of the western world started to shit themselves in case the proles rose and it happened in their back yard and made concessions that completely went against capitalism such as pension providing after ww1 and an nhs after ww2.

So socialism was a natural by-product of the destructive nature of capitalism, but it can't save capitalism because of one very simple thing: Capitalism eats itself as it relies on perpetual exponential growth WHICH IS IMPOSSIBLE. It's why we struggle to get any growth now, it's why we are in ZIRP territory for so long (even negative interest rates  are upon us), it's why we have borrowed trillions from the future that won't be paid back, it's why immigration is deliberately high. It's why we have socialism for the rich aka bailouts. It's why bail-ins are inevitable (thought your cash was safe didn't you) and it's why asset bubbles are being blown up as all that printed funny-money finds home to roost.

Nobody wants any more tat from China so the whole rotten edifice starts to crumble.

Maybe socialism isn't the complete answer but capitalism isn't, it's on life support. We need something similar though that is based on resource sharing and 0% growth, and we need it damned quick 'cos the last time capitalism needed a reset it resulted in WW2.

 

[HanoiVillan]

2 hours ago, Mic09 said:

I get your point - however by what means, if not by re distribution of wealth (i.e taking away from some and giving to others) can government run ANY of it's projects? Government does not have any money to run any industry, unless it takes that money from the tax payer. Government does not create any wealth - the only source of it's funding is by taking away from the tax payers. 

All governments* fund themselves through two main sources, taxation and borrowing. At any given time, they may have a mixture of these sources. One of my complaints (which I see @blandy has also made above) about the British government is that they rely too much on taxation currently, and not enough on borrowing at a time when capital markets are offering the UK government borrowing at almost 0% interest. However, no matter what party is in government, borrowing and taxation will both be large parts of government revenue. 

I think you misunderstand what 'wealth' is. Wealth comes from labour, productivity and material extraction. Your 'wealth' is almost certainly entirely bound up in your labour, unless you have a basement full of gold bullion or a private oilfield and a private army to defend it. Most of your 'wealth', assuming you are a fairly normal person, is bound up in your house (which would still be good to live in, if there was no government, but not very easy to defend or to sell), your pension (the value of which fluctuates massively depending on all sorts of factors) and your bank accounts/investments/cash wealth. However, cash has no value independent of government - in that case, it's just fancy loo roll. The value of cash is the value of the government-as-intermediary in a transaction agreeing on a mutual definition of value that both parties in the transaction implicitly agree with. 

So most of your 'wealth' is in your labour, and of course the government do tax your income. However, I flatly do not believe that the government take away more than 50% of your income in tax. 

You state above that 'government does not create any wealth', but this cannot be true. Investments (of both private and public nature) that raise productivity create wealth. Building a network of motorways created wealth. Building power stations and a national grid created wealth. Designing the Internet created wealth. I think if you don't see that, you have a deep misunderstanding of what 'wealth' is. 

*you can probably make arguments about certain governments which are funded largely by aid (South Sudan) or crime (North Korea), but I'm concentrating here on developed countries. 

Edited March 20, 2016 by HanoiVillan

[Xann]

[blandy]

25 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Wealth comes from labour, productivity and material extraction

It does, though perhaps not exclusively. It also comes from 2 other things. Firstly intellect - the invention or discovery or creation or innovation of things. This is huge, and it's something the UK has been really good at. The other thing is more parasitic and that's the speculatey - tradey - agenty - banky - hedge fundey insurancey side of things. This something that's been concentrated on at the expense of manufacturing since the Witches time. People generating wealth by gambling with or using other people's money, really. You might argue that's not wealth creation, but a trip to that London would tell otherwise.

But I agreed with your post, generally. HV

[mockingbird_franklin]

hmmm, seems you have fallen for the old problem of confusing accumulated wealth with created wealth. the city of London and banks with their countefeiting of sovereign currency are very good at accumulating wealth and claiming its created.

Gambling and speculation type gambling that makes up an awful lot of the finacial industry's activities do not create wealth, Banks can't even create currency, they need real live people to do it, it's the slight of hand that usually surrounds this currency creation that leads people to think the bank created it.

lets look at a simple gambling situation, i back a horse at 5-1 and it wins, would you say i accumulated some wealth with my winnings or created it, for me to create it, it would have had not to exist before i won. but then we are also forgetting that money/currency is not wealth, it is th means of exchange of wealth, the wealth is the product of the expenditure of labour.

If have a £1 coin and a loaf of bread worth £1, the bread is wealth not the £1 coin, unfortunately we have been lead to believe the opposite

 

Edited March 20, 2016 by mockingbird_franklin

[Xann]

It seems the reasons spouted to convert all schools to academies are flawed.

Golly, it wouldn't be those deeds they're after?

Quote

The questions is whether a school will perform better if it stays a local authority maintained schools or becomes an academy. To answer that schools must be compared to similar schools, those with similar results in the previous year. Look again at the graph. Each of these five comparisons compares similar primary schools. In each case it is the non-academy whose results improve at a faster rate.

The government knows it is being deceitful...

Local Schools Network

[blandy]

17 minutes ago, mockingbird_franklin said:

seems you have fallen for the old problem of confusing accumulated wealth with created wealth.

I think I know the difference. I do take the point of your post and agree with it up till recent times. As I said the City types have an element of parasitic behaviour - taking others' wealth for themselves, kind of skimming off a percentage. But you could also argue that their brokering activity - the provision of a service (facilities and labour and intellect) is genuinely creating "value" for their customers. There are also parts of the whole investment and speculation side of what they do that "creates" wealth, or adds wealth value. I suppose I'm defining trading as a means of adding wealth, but maybe HV had that under "labour". I just think the finance side has become so complex that it's a means in itself.

[mockingbird_franklin]

so if i was skilled at something. like stealing, i'd be creating wealth by offering my theiving services to others? yes i know quite rightfully stealing is morally and lawfully wrong, whilst many of the activities undertaken by financial institutions are just morally wrong

Edited March 20, 2016 by mockingbird_franklin

[blandy]

49 minutes ago, mockingbird_franklin said:

so if i was skilled at something. like stealing, i'd be creating wealth by offering my theiving services to others? yes i know quite rightfully stealing is morally and lawfully wrong, whilst many of the activities undertaken by financial institutions are just morally wrong

That's not a good analogy at all. What I'm attempting too get across is that say in simple terms you put money, savings or wages, into a building society or bank, if they lend money to someone else (your money) for a 4% interest rate, and they give you 3% interest and keep 1% for themselves, then they are "creating wealth for you by paying you 3% interest, they're facilitating someone else access to a loan at 4% (from which they might grow their own business) and they're "generating" 1% they keep for their service. That's obviously a simple transaction and only a small part of banking, but it's a part of our financial system, and it works. They're not stealing, nothing like. Of course, there are parts of the banking system that are broken and need fixing and some of what they do is morally wrong. But the idea that I was trying to get across of banking services, whether by deposits and loans, by betting (hedge funds) or by venture capital, or by other trading (say in shares) do kind of create wealth. It's a huge part of the economy.

[Xann]

Other reasons for IDS to be cut loose.

Before the latest round of cuts, September last year.

Quote

The United Nations is carrying out an unprecedented inquiry into “systematic and grave violations” of disabled people’s human rights by the UK government, Disability News Service (DNS) can finally confirm.

DNS revealed last August that the UK appeared to have become the first country to face a high-level inquiry by the UN’s committee on the rights of persons with disabilities (CRPD)...

... the inquiry is taking place, and has been underway since January 2014.

The inquiry was triggered by the grassroots campaigning organisation Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC), which had grown increasingly concerned by the disproportionate impact of the coalition’s cuts on disabled people.

DPAC first contacted CRPD in 2012 and began to submit evidence about the coalition’s cuts and reforms in early 2013, with its request for an inquiry considered by the committee behind closed doors in April 2013.

In a blog published this week, explaining why it had finally confirmed its role, DPAC said that in order to persuade CRPD to carry out an inquiry it had had to prove that there had been “severe” and “continuous” violations of rights enshrined in the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) that had been built into the government’s welfare reforms...

Other issues raised and evidenced by DPAC include the impact of the bedroom tax; the government’s unwillingness to make an assessment of the cumulative impact of its cuts and reforms on disabled people; cuts to social care; the impact of benefit sanctions on disabled people; delays in benefit assessments; and the government’s reluctance to monitor disabled people found fit for work and who have lost their only means of support.

Disability News Service

Quick! Get rid of Duncan Smith...

 

 

 

 

[mockingbird_franklin]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

That's not a good analogy at all. What I'm attempting too get across is that say in simple terms you put money, savings or wages, into a building society or bank, if they lend money to someone else (your money) for a 4% interest rate, and they give you 3% interest and keep 1% for themselves, then they are "creating wealth for you by paying you 3% interest, they're facilitating someone else access to a loan at 4% (from which they might grow their own business) and they're "generating" 1% they keep for their service. That's obviously a simple transaction and only a small part of banking, but it's a part of our financial system, and it works. They're not stealing, nothing like. Of course, there are parts of the banking system that are broken and need fixing and some of what they do is morally wrong. But the idea that I was trying to get across of banking services, whether by deposits and loans, by betting (hedge funds) or by venture capital, or by other trading (say in shares) do kind of create wealth. It's a huge part of the economy.

but this isn't how banking works, it is how we are lead to believe it works. banks do not lend out deposits, they do not lend out their own money, they lend money that doesn't exist prior to the loan being made. oh and nobody has any money in the bank, partly because we don't have money any more, we have currency, but that is a side point, any money you place in a bank account is now the banks. you are now a creditor to the banks. the currency most people put in the bank is a representation of real wealth, the realisation of their labour and skills, of their hard work. this is devalued by the funny currency banks flood the market with by offering credit, and mainly so a very few privileged don't have to actually expend any labour or skills to amass huge wealth.

now of course banks don't use any tactic as honest as plain stealing to accumulate wealth, stealing is unlawful, as was the usuary that is the core principle of modern banking up until a few hundred years ago. Banks still don't create wealth, the best claim they could use and even this is dubious one is that they help facilitate the creation of wealth.

There is a place for banking institutions under the system you describe, that is why the lie is peddled. they actually destroy the value of your store of wealth through their usury practices and the supporting inflation of the currency supply. 97% of all new currency is magic'd up by banks through credit.  But the reality is worse than just destroying the value of your stored wealth, it is also devaluing your labour and skills so you current and future wealth value of your efforts is devalued. 

The 3% interest paid to you still isn't created wealth, it is redistributed wealth, if they borrow it to someone who buys some goods, then yes they could be argued they are fascilitation wealth creation in the goods or services purchased by the borrower, hmmm but if those goods are not new as in the majority of house sales has any new wealth been created? I'd argue not, and their charge of interest isaccumulation not creation and your cut is just a share of the accumulation. the interest just reduces future spending power of the borrower

 

Edited March 20, 2016 by mockingbird_franklin

[Mic09]

7 hours ago, snowychap said:

That is incorrect.

What do you mean when you say 'wealth'?

How is it incorrent? How can a single penny spent by the government come into action if not by taking away from it's citizens in the first place? I should have made myself a little clearer in the first place again - even if the governemnt takes every penny out of everybody in the country they would still not have a single penny to fund anything. I don't know if you know, but Britain is a bankrupt, and as of the first quarter of 2015 it was  £1.56 trillion, (81.58% of GDP) in debt. Trust me, somebody is going to have to pay this one day, and it will probably be our children. And as lady Thatcher used to say:

“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”

As for wealth, by wealth I understand anything that has a specific material value to any particular person. For instance, I create my wealth because I exchange my apple for your 
£ 1. The only reason you have exchanged your money for my apple, is because you seem that apple to be of a greater value to you than the   £1. In the same way, I seem that £1 to be of greater value to me than the apple.  This is the only reason anybody exchanges (i.e. buys) anything. You buy an Ipad because you see it to be of greater value to you than £400. If that was not the case, I trully do not understand why you purchased it in the first place. 

The way that government works, is that it creates a third party which spends your money in the way that they seem fit - whether that be for a new school, new bicycle road, or for raging war in a country you have never heard of. Of course, you have no direct say whether you wish for the money to be spent that way. Either way, by doing such, it must, following any sort of logic, take more money than it spent on that given cause. For instance, sticking to our apple example, in order for the government to be the middle man between you and me in our apple transaction, it must charge you a higher price to cover the cost of the beurocrat that will see the transaction through. Hence, you will not pay £1 pund for my apple - you will pay £1.20, which will cover the government cost of being the middle man there. Although the final result is the same, you are 20p worse off. This is wasteful. I attched aother interesting video of how money can be spent, I advise everybody to have a look, it's so simple yet mind blowing.

 

 

Edited March 20, 2016 by Mic09

[Shaw_nuff]

2 hours ago, Mic09 said:

How is it incorrent? How can a single penny spent by the government come into action if not by taking away from it's citizens in the first place? I should have made myself a little clearer in the first place again - even if the governemnt takes every penny out of everybody in the country they would still not have a single penny to fund anything. I don't know if you know, but Britain is a bankrupt, and as of the first quarter of 2015 it was  £1.56 trillion, (81.58% of GDP) in debt. Trust me, somebody is going to have to pay this one day, and it will probably be our children. And as lady Thatcher used to say:

“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”

As for wealth, by wealth I understand anything that has a specific material value to any particular person. For instance, I create my wealth because I exchange my apple for your 
£ 1. The only reason you have exchanged your money for my apple, is because you seem that apple to be of a greater value to you than the   £1. In the same way, I seem that £1 to be of greater value to me than the apple.  This is the only reason anybody exchanges (i.e. buys) anything. You buy an Ipad because you see it to be of greater value to you than £400. If that was not the case, I trully do not understand why you purchased it in the first place. 

The way that government works, is that it creates a third party which spends your money in the way that they seem fit - whether that be for a new school, new bicycle road, or for raging war in a country you have never heard of. Of course, you have no direct say whether you wish for the money to be spent that way. Either way, by doing such, it must, following any sort of logic, take more money than it spent on that given cause. For instance, sticking to our apple example, in order for the government to be the middle man between you and me in our apple transaction, it must charge you a higher price to cover the cost of the beurocrat that will see the transaction through. Hence, you will not pay £1 pund for my apple - you will pay £1.20, which will cover the government cost of being the middle man there. Although the final result is the same, you are 20p worse off. This is wasteful. I attched aother interesting video of how money can be spent, I advise everybody to have a look, it's so simple yet mind blowing.

 

 

Yeah, thanks Milton for forty years of neo con trickery and borrowing from the future - and I include Tory Blair in that. How is socialism going for your rich mates in wall street?

[HanoiVillan]

3 hours ago, Mic09 said:

How is it incorrent? How can a single penny spent by the government come into action if not by taking away from it's citizens in the first place?

Did you not read what I wrote about borrowing? The UK government plans to borrow roughly £70bn this financial year, decreasing to around £55.5bn next year. According to you this, what, doesn't exist as a source of funding?

3 hours ago, Mic09 said:

I don't know if you know, but Britain is a bankrupt, and as of the first quarter of 2015 it was  £1.56 trillion, (81.58% of GDP) in debt. Trust me, somebody is going to have to pay this one day, and it will probably be our children.

Well anybody who 'knows' that doesn't know anything at all. Of course Britain isn't bankrupt, as the simple application of common sense ought to tell you. If it were, do you think there would be a completely standard budget and people just getting on with their daily lives as per normal? Do you think we'd be talking about anything else? I'm trying to be charitable here, but you have a damaging lack of understanding of how sovereign debt works. Sovereign debt is never 'paid off', except in exceptional circumstances. Instead it is rolled over, ie. the government pays the interest out of revenue and new borrowing. We are never suddenly going to get a bill for £1.56 trillion, and if you think we are, I'm sorry but you need to read more about finance before commenting. If Britain were nearing a sovereign debt default (which is what you're hinting here) it wouldn't be borrowing on international capital markets at a yield of 1.5%. 

3 hours ago, Mic09 said:

As for wealth, by wealth I understand anything that has a specific material value to any particular person. For instance, I create my wealth because I exchange my apple for your 
£ 1. The only reason you have exchanged your money for my apple, is because you seem that apple to be of a greater value to you than the   £1. In the same way, I seem that £1 to be of greater value to me than the apple.  This is the only reason anybody exchanges (i.e. buys) anything. You buy an Ipad because you see it to be of greater value to you than £400. If that was not the case, I trully do not understand why you purchased it in the first place. 

This is a hopelessly simplistic understanding of why people spend money on things. If the council - for the first time in months - finally charge me £80 for parking in a disabled space, is it correct to say I gained £80 of value out of parking in that space? If the electricity board put my rates up by 20%, would it be fair to say I valued my electricity 20% more - that I got 20% more value out of it - this quarter than I did last quarter?

3 hours ago, Mic09 said:

The way that government works, is that it creates a third party which spends your money in the way that they seem fit - whether that be for a new school, new bicycle road, or for raging war in a country you have never heard of. Of course, you have no direct say whether you wish for the money to be spent that way. Either way, by doing such, it must, following any sort of logic, take more money than it spent on that given cause. For instance, sticking to our apple example, in order for the government to be the middle man between you and me in our apple transaction, it must charge you a higher price to cover the cost of the beurocrat that will see the transaction through. Hence, you will not pay £1 pund for my apple - you will pay £1.20, which will cover the government cost of being the middle man there. 

I'm trying to follow the logic here, really I am, but I'll be honest you've totally lost me. Which bureaucrat 'sees through' a transaction where you sell me an apple for a pound? 

[Chindie]

Someone needs to take whoever started peddling nation state finances in terms and character you'd associate with personal or household finances and budgeting outside and give them a good shoeing. It's this nonsense that had Osborne able to convince people we'd be the next Greece and we needed to start shitting on the poor lest we collapse to anarchy.

If the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is currently bankrupt, most of the planet has been for decades. We've run a surplus a handful of times in the last 50 years - I don't recall reading about any IMF bailiffs knocking Westminster's doors and taking Big Ben in lieu of payment.

Edited March 21, 2016 by Chindie

[blandy]

12 hours ago, mockingbird_franklin said:

 banks .....lend money that doesn't exist prior to the loan being made.

QED

[snowychap]

On 20/03/2016 at 20:53, Mic09 said:

I don't know if you know, but Britain is a bankrupt

No it is not.

On 20/03/2016 at 20:53, Mic09 said:

somebody is going to have to pay this one day, and it will probably be our children

No they won't (certainly not all in one go) and no, it won't.

On 20/03/2016 at 20:53, Mic09 said:

As for wealth, by wealth I understand anything that has a specific material value to any particular person...

What? You're talking about the price/value of something specific in an exchange/transaction. There is much, much more to wealth/life/economics than exchanging an apple for a pound (by the way, I'd stop shopping there if I were you - you're being done).

On 20/03/2016 at 20:53, Mic09 said:

This is the only reason anybody exchanges (i.e. buys) anything.

I think you make a grave mistake if you think people's purchasing is dictated by whether or not they see the good/service they receive as of greater value than the money they pay for it, i.e. that they'll only make purchases which they deem to be of 'good value' (to them). 

In your simple wealth = the value of a good/service in a transaction model, how are you suggesting that 'wealth' (as you consider it) is created? By there being a transaction and someone therefore assigning a value to that good/service?

I'm trying to understand the argument that you actually make and which leads you back to the old mantra of 'wealth' only being created by a private sector.

On 20/03/2016 at 20:53, Mic09 said:

I attched aother interesting video of how money can be spent, I advise everybody to have a look, it's so simple yet mind blowing.

Do you watch anything else other than Milton bloody Friedman?

"When you spend your own money on yourself, you're very careful..." What cobblers.

Edited March 22, 2016 by snowychap
that/than

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

gideon not even turning up to the commons today.

[Dr_Pangloss]

I think Gideon has practically buried himself and what's left 'over-ground' will be buried by his enemies, his career in politics is now effectively over. His policies have no real economic credibility as far as the discipline of economics is concerned and now this farce has put the nail in his coffin. 

[Guest av1]

I'm sure this has been discussed already (i have used the search tool and gone back over a few months of posts) but as my partner is planning on doing a nursing degree next year whats the general opinion on governments decision to stop bursaries?

I thought the general idea of bursaries was 1) to encourage people into what is a very low paid profession, and 2) students actually offer a service to the NHS via unpaid  placements.  

I simply can't imagine many people wanting to enter a profession with starting salaries as low as £21k and huge debt to boot.