If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Hell is freezing over - I agree with Will Self
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgNzarXntmQ
I realise the title might be a little vague so I'll suggest a more serious and focused topic for discussion - PPP's, outsourcing, privatisation, financial deregulation - in short the neo-liberal economic consensus of the past 25-30 years is now over; the free market is not free, unchecked capitalism can't work and we should work towards an economic system where only the vital things are free from the interests of capital, such as the utilities.
Do you agree with this idea, if so/if not what do you propose we should do in terms of an overall economic strategy for Britain?
I realise the title might be a little vague so I'll suggest a more serious and focused topic for discussion - PPP's, outsourcing, privatisation, financial deregulation - in short the neo-liberal economic consensus of the past 25-30 years is now over; the free market is not free, unchecked capitalism can't work and we should work towards an economic system where only the vital things are free from the interests of capital, such as the utilities.
Do you agree with this idea, if so/if not what do you propose we should do in terms of an overall economic strategy for Britain?
0
Comments
In fact given that Public Sector Borrowing is going to go up and PFI and PPP are attempts to reduce Government borrowing (by get private companies to borrow and Govt to pay by use) that we're more likely to see more of them for capital projects.
I'd argue outsourcing has been overall succesful (though I could point to individual failures).
I suspect they'll be tighter financial regulation, more so than now, but not as much as pre-1985.
Everytime there's a recession people say there is a crisis in capitalism. I'd argue they are no more right this time than any previous recession.
That depends how you measure success, and it is this particular area of the argument that needs confronting - on what criteria are we judging success?
In the case of outsourcing, for the lowest paid workers globally this has meant an erosion of wage increases, of the power of collective bargaining to solve disputes, lower job security and the attendant physical and mental health problems which such a situation brings.
I'd argue that this is a wood for the trees issue - the very nature of having two major recessions in that time DOES mean that capitalism is unstable, in fact the very nature of capitalistic renewal is to thrive on instability.
I think you will be hard pressed to find many reputable economists who will support that view - in the post Thatcher/Reagan years (when the market were deregulated and everything but the kitchen sink was privatised) continuing into the Labour years (although pre 2000 they must be credited for stopping the years of rot in NHS investment), there has been a consistent adherence to monetarism with virtually no debate from either of the two or three major parties.
We need a level of capitalistic enterprise, however the pendulum has clearly swung too far in favour of free markets, and I would argue that (as you point out) tighter financial regulation is just the start of it.
No one wants a command economy, and I think you are right to suggest that just because there are problems with one thing the antithesis is not necessarily the answer. The key I think will be to curb the rashness of an unprecidented period of socioeconomic development in human history, to a more managable, sustainable and stable one that is more attentive to human needs and interests (whatever they might happen to be at any point in time).
Outsourcing abroad has often been a major boon to those countries, pay well above their average wages, bringing in expertise, better health and safety than is normal for them (even if below Western standards).
In what time period? because depending on which one you use you'll see an upward (if jagged) slope for capitalist economies, whereas for the non-cpaitalist economies you'll see the same jagged slope, upward if lucky, more often stagnation and in many cases falling. Of course it also depends what you mean by capitalist.
I'm also not sure capitalism thrives on instability - surely stability (of markets, of supply, of labour) is much more important.
Uk spend is around 40-45% of GDP. If a reputable economist thinks we're practicing neo-liberal economics, I think we need to define what we mean by neo-liberal economics. Because if we mean untrammelled free trade with hardly any Government intervention its not what we've got (or had since the 1930's).
There has been some deregulation, that's true, but it has also been countered by increasing regulation in other areas. Now some of that regulation is good, I suspect few would argue against various tightenings of H&S, others are more controversial.
In theory, unfortunately in practice you end up searching in the garden for the baby which has just gone out with the bathwater. There's also certainly an argument that capitalism is more sustainable, in that in a profit driven system wasted energy, materials etc is money. Certainly when I worked in energy efficiency big business was a lot more receptive to ways to cut energy wastage than the unions (though the unions did take me out for a nice meal)
When I say 'outsourcing' I am referring to the subcontracting of things such as cleaning and bottling, which in both cases has ample international evidence, both in first and third world countries, of eroding quality and stability. In addition, the health and safety side of things has largely been the product of worker organisation, political and social initiatives and a willingness to organise to ensure safe working conditions.
It was economic pressure bought by these initiatives that led to the 1974 Health and Safety at Work Act coming into force, which was applied due to increasing legal action and lost productivity, particularly in the building trade.
It is no surprise that countries with strong records in this area (and that includes Western Europe) benefit greatly from this. I am not saying that globalised trade has been a bad thing, in fact I think actually its something of an inevitable development in human history, but lets not conflate the developments of society with the achievements of an economic system.
I take your point about stability being a relative phenomenon, so what I will say is that a certain amount of slack in the system needs to exist for there to be any area to exploit (in the sense of accumulating profit). I think the trend of the last twenty years, away from the long term stability of secure jobs, secure pensions and finances, towards a system of greater immediate credit but an uncertain future, underscores this principle.
Of course the world will never be a totally secure place, that is a given, and life with a little bit of economic up and down is still far preferrable to the historical examples of command economies and societies. The problem with the current state of economic relations is that in our Runaway world, economic circumstances are changing, and capital flows can move between nations so quickly, that real people cannot (a human capital) hope to respond.
A case that will be underscored by the levels of unemployment we are sure to see of skilled and useful people, having staked a great deal of finance and service sectors.
I think the conflation of H&S with monetary regulation is a bit of a misnomer - yes there has been increasing regulation in terms of the centralisation of bureaucracy toward central government and away from local control (one of the reasons why the paradox of globalisation is a kick back from local areas asserting their own control, such as welsh and scottish devolution). But, in terms of the separation of traditional savings and loan banking & investment, in terms of the rise of PPPs and the privatisation of support services in the public sector, this liberalisation is evident in all areas of the economy.
I would suggest that we might be conflating managerialism and neo-liberal economics.
Yeah this is true; the problem is that both are interested parties, and of course both have to take care of their own. Unions, particularly those in the auto industry in America, were originally the biggest reason why pollution targets for auto production and design were resisted, due to the effect on jobs.
Now there is no argument, and the auto unions risk losing support if they defy the green agenda. But I'd go back to what Anthony Giddens was arguing back in 1999 in the Reith Lectures on Globalisation (this guy was and still is called the doom harbinger of neo-liberalism by many left leaning academics, and also not a favorite of the tories for being one of Blair's gurus but in a sense he was right).
What Giddens argued was that globalisation was a progression of human societies, not just an effect of economic dominance or exploitation. It presents both opportunities and problems, and needs to be seen in these terms. The big problem is that global capital flows need an international framework of regulation, or at least that covers a big enough economic area to make a dent (like the EU, for instance).
The problem is that resistance to international law and frameworks of governance mean that regulation cannot keep pace with developments, and things run away with themselves, hence - runaway world.
The flip side of your example of maximising efficiency is of course that after a while, efficiency will mean cutting costs - you are a cost.
Indeed.
It's private owners thrown in jail.
There was a financial coup in 1913 which gave the power to print and issue Americas currency to a handful of international bankers for profit.
Most people think the government create and issue the dollars but they don't.
If the government want a trillion dollars they ask Mr Rothschild and his criminal gang to loan it to them ...which they do at interest.
The entire income tax in America gooes to pay the interest to these international bankers.
Not one penny of income tax goes on defence education or anything else you can think of.
Every penny goes to this criminal group to pay the interest they create on every dollar issued.
When the government borrow money from these people ...they just create the money out of thin air.
tHESE PEOPLE PRODUCE NOTHING ...CREATE NOTHING ...provide nothing ...nothing but instant debt.
They contribute nothing to the world but take everything.
The real answer to most of the worlds ills is ...the production and issuance of debt free money.
The Bible writers had it sussed all that time back ...free trade but interest free money.
Usury ..the lemnding of money at interest ...was seen as a sin.
Debt free money would mean there would right now be at least another six hundred trillion dollars of wealth circulating around the world.
Thats how much the Rothschild family are reckoned to be worth.
Thats over half the worlds wealtjh.
By the year 1800 ...Meyer Rothschild owned half the worlds wealth.
One man!
That cannot be right. Cannot benefit mankind.
He says he wou;ld give it up for no one.
I share your logic and reasoning, Morrocan Roll.
However,be warned not to mention the Scriptures.It seems we have evolved since then.Tangible money is a barbarous relic and religious belief. Economic experts know best. That is a science now. Promissary notes. Debt obligations. Stocks and shares. Loans. Mortgages. Credit cards. Derivatives. Some call this free trade and capitalism. I prefer your definition but maybe I have complete ignorance.
The only reason i qoute the Bible here is cos it's the oldest piece of such wisdom i can find.
Debt free money would rid us of starvation help the environment improve democracy and many other benefits.
/tinfoil
Now that you are aware of the modus operandi, Senor Miguel, are you going to sit back and enjoy the show at last ?
it's nothing i haven't known for years so i'm not sure what there is to enjoy about what's coming down the pipe....i can't live in fear of the future anyways - the war on terror / economic depression followed by cashless NWO etc, it's all just maya to distract you from being present and realising your true potential.
Yes, that I cannot deny.
However there will be many that will do their best to persuade the population in true Soviet style that "we are all in this together, Komrade". Who can blame them when the latest figures are showing the National Debt at £33000 for every man, woman and child ? Any sucker that falls for that Animal Farm rhetoric is welcome. I suggest that anyone with a modicum of sense sits it out and makes it a spectator sport. Preferably with a seat as close as possible to the fire exit in preparation for when this sick Caligulan orgy reaches a climax.