The 2015 Popularity Contest (aka UK General Election )

[Clint Planet]

Becoming an MP at 26 is utterly insane.

It's almost as though he's part of some sort of self-serving political closed shop that we should all be up in arms about. Like, if they were all caught with their fingers in the till, we'd mobilise and give them the heave-ho, never entertaining their like again ....erm.... hang on.

Not that "The Man" exists, like....

 

[Clint Planet]

And no i don't think 'Make it fairer' is a sufficient answer...

Why not?

 

[Bruce Wayne]

A bit naive, I think. From "humanity" springs the "political or economic system."

And I do think there is a constant "message" in our society that capitalism might be a bit erm bad but, hey, just think of the alternative!

Hence posts like yours.

I'm not arguing for "Socialism" (whatever "socialism" might be) as you so quickly assume, I'm saying to everyone - but particularly your generation - "QUESTION EVERYTHING!!"

I agree entirely. We should be questioning why so much state welfare distorts the global food market, and the impact of tariffs and quotas on the ability of farmers in developing countries to compete fairly.

We should question the wisdom of the state welfare to the finance industry, and the renewable energy industry and the various other industries that spend so much time and money lobbying the government to ensure they get their snouts in the trough.

I wish it was a free market, or even close to it, but there are so many systemic things that distort the market that it's sadly anything but right now.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Precisely ?

The picture you posted says 'Capitalism doesn't work', in fact that seems to be the entire point of it, but there is zero evidence of there being a better system. Socialism for example has failed in many ways in any state that has implemented it. What's the constant between both ? Humans.

Indeed. I'm inclined to think that the power of any system is its ability to collect and act upon feedback. If the end user of a service is unhappy with the service they get, what can they realistically do about that, and how does that action prompt the service provider to change their ways?

In a market with lots of providers, they can obviously take their custom elsewhere, with that simple act hopefully ensuring that all keep on top of their game.

When it's a monopoly (whether public or private), that action isn't available. The unhappy user's only choice then is to lobby and protest in the hope that the provider, who doesn't need to change to retain your custom, will somehow do so.

If we assume that there are good and bad people in life (whether public or private), the real value surely comes with what course of action you give people when those bad folks screw up?

With socialism/state monopolies, the belief seems to be that they can eradicate bad people at source and provide a service staffed only by good people. I'm not sure that's either realistic or (from evidence) right.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

The rich, the talented, the ambitious, the academically gifted, the motivated and the connected can and will always look after themselves and succeed under any Government. That's not an issue in politics and I wish politicians would recognise this and move on. For me personally it is irrelevant who is in Government, it really has no effect on my standard of living.

What defines the good and bad in politics is the effect of policy on the poor, the weak, the under-educated or unskilled, the elderly, the disabled, sick and those not capable of determining their own outcomes. That's why I'm a socialist - because I believe only socialism offers improvement to the needy.

The most important thing is how does a Government treat those in need of Government sponsored (paid) services - education, health and social services. It is only by adequately supporting these services that we can improve the quality of life of those not able to do so for themselves. The result of lifting their quality of life is that each of us improves our own quality of life. We become a richer society in every respect.

I think there's a perception sometimes that only those on the left care about the poor, or indeed that only the state can provide services to the poor. I'm not sure that's the case.

There's a huge amount of innovation at the moment that is aimed at the poor as much as it is the rich. Pretty much every day I come across a new project that is trying to do something for the poor, whether it's improving health or providing education.

Whilst some of those projects come from the state, a good majority of them don't. There has been enough evidence over the years that to create innovations, there has to be a large amount of experimentation, failure, and adaptation. The evidence suggests that when a single entity has a monopoly, those things don't happen anywhere near as much.

 

[Clint Planet]

I agree entirely. We should be questioning why so much state welfare distorts the global food market, and the impact of tariffs and quotas on the ability of farmers in developing countries to compete fairly.

We should question the wisdom of the state welfare to the finance industry, and the renewable energy industry and the various other industries that spend so much time and money lobbying the government to ensure they get their snouts in the trough.

I wish it was a free market, or even close to it, but there are so many systemic things that distort the market that it's sadly anything but right now.

It's weird how right-wing libetarians care much more about "the market" than people.

 

[orly]

Becoming an MP at 26 is utterly insane.

Just wait until you see the girl that Labour are putting up in Sheffield next year.

I know her personally and how she has passed their background checks is incredible, casting couch politics methinks

 

[Clint Planet]

I think there's a perception sometimes that only those on the left care about the poor, or indeed that only the state can provide services to the poor. I'm not sure that's the case.

Really? Open your eyes and look around.

There's a huge amount of innovation at the moment that is aimed at the poor as much as it is the rich. Pretty much every day I come across a new project that is trying to do something for the poor, whether it's improving health or providing education.

I know. Scandalous, isn't it?* Poverty is, of course, a political decision. We could end it tomorrow if we as a country wanted to.

Whilst some of those projects come from the state, a good majority of them don't. There has been enough evidence over the years that to create innovations, there has to be a large amount of experimentation, failure, and adaptation. The evidence suggests that when a single entity has a monopoly, those things don't happen anywhere near as much.

Agreed, and yet I can't help doubting that the capitalist model really gives a toss about the disadvantaged in society. There's an awful lot of evidence for that view, too.


*Actually, my wife is a grants assessor for a charity that funds local health initiatives and I fully acknowledge the important role of local knowledge - I just think the top 1% or whatever should be funding it through taxes rather than the bottom 30% through Health Lottery tickets.
.

 

[Clint Planet]

Just wait until you see the girl that Labour are putting up in Sheffield next year.

I know her personally and how she has passed their background checks is incredible, casting couch politics methinks

Indeed. Labour apparatchiks parachuted in are nearly as depressing as Tory toffs deciding to run the country before they've come down from the Bullingdon Club.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

It's weird how right-wing libetarians care much more about "the market" than people.

Often one of the same isn't it? I mean how many farmers in developing countries are impoverished because the likes of the Common Agricultural Policy block them out of western markets?

I suspect most would agree that the best way out of poverty is to work yourself out of it, but that's much harder when the scales are tipped in the favour of incumbents by state subsidies and tariffs.

 

[Clint Planet]

Often one of the same isn't it?

No, not really. It's a dangerous thing to treat one as the other.

I mean how many farmers in developing countries are impoverished because the likes of the Common Agricultural Policy block them out of western markets?

Oh, I'm all for wealth redistribution towards exploited developing countries. The Man won't allow it, of course.

I suspect most would agree that the best way out of poverty is to work yourself out of it, but that's much harder when the scales are tipped in the favour of incumbents by state subsidies and tariffs.

And there we have it. The Neo-liberal idea that the poor are somehow to blame for their own poverty. I despair, I really do.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Really? Open your eyes and look around.

Yes, my job is to look around at these sorts of things, and there's an incredible amount of non-state work being done that's massively improving the lot of the disadvantaged.

Agreed, and yet I can't help doubting that the capitalist model really gives a toss about the disadvantaged in society. There's an awful lot of evidence for that view, too.

*Actually, my wife is a grants assessor for a charity that funds local health initiatives and I fully acknowledge the important role of local knowledge - I just think the top 1% or whatever should be funding it through taxes rather than the bottom 30% through Health Lottery tickets.
.

Just society isn't it? As with any group of people, some will think one way, some will think another. I mean the late, great CK Prahalad first published his Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid a decade ago. Whilst it's probably true that it isn't altogether mainstream, it's significantly more often the case that companies are applying frugal innovation (or jugaad innovation to use the jargon) to provide products for the vast number of people that do currently live in poverty.

What's more, many of that thinking is coming full circle, and informing the way we approach things in the west. Of course, markets aren't going to be an entire solution, but they shouldn't be dismissed either.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

No, not really. It's a dangerous thing to treat one as the other.



Oh, I'm all for wealth redistribution towards exploited developing countries. The Man won't allow it, of course.



And there we have it. The Neo-liberal idea that the poor are somehow to blame for their own poverty. I despair, I really do.

I'm not saying they're to blame at all. I'm saying the politicians, and the lobbyists of special interest groups, are to blame for locking many people out of markets they could be trading in. How on earth is an African farmer to blame for the CAP?

Between the EU and America, farmers receive around $60 billion in subsidies. We should be looking at New Zealand as an example of a country that has stopped all of that, and still has a thriving agricultural industry, without blocking other nations from trading with it.

Incidentally, that policy from New Zealand was enacted by a Labour government down there in the mid 80s.

 

[roydo]

Whats that saying, "give a man £10 and he can feed his family for a day, give him a hoe and fishing rod, and he can feed his family for ever"?

Something between the two would seem a good idea.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Whats that saying, "give a man £10 and he can feed his family for a day, give him a hoe and fishing rod, and he can feed his family for ever"?

Something between the two would seem a good idea.

It's crazy really. https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?showYear=2014&indexType=i

Have a look at the vast amount of money spent trying to secure favours from politicians. Then add in the trade unions and the lobbying they do and it's not hard to see how markets are hugely distorted by special interest groups. It's criminal really.