Flynnwood
Established Member
Thank you - much appreciated.
Any (post 2008) Economists in the house? - Inflation.
- Thread starter Flynnwood
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
- Status
Thank you - much appreciated.
Jameshow
Established Member
I don't think capitalism is wrong nor that communism is wrong. What is wrong is when the moral spine behind the economics collapses and men do right thier own eyes ...
We need wealth creation as much a socialist support and care. The two go hand in hand.
When one is very much in the accendancy there is often greed or corruption.
Cheers James
We need wealth creation as much a socialist support and care. The two go hand in hand.
When one is very much in the accendancy there is often greed or corruption.
Cheers James
Last edited:
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
What goes wrong with capitalism is when right wing ideologues insist that free markets are better for everybody and that we would be better just letting them get on with it. It's just not true.
Luckily we have socialism in various forms, which is much less ideological than the right and more concerned with the realistic practicalities of getting things done sensibly.
Terry - Somerset
Established Member
Greed and ambition are part of the human condition. They are traits affecting sufficient numbers (not everyone) to dominate economic and social progress.
Bankers, hedge fund managers, business owners see money as the key measure of personal success. They enjoy that which money buys and do that which is necessary to achieve their goals. They are largely (not wholly) unconcerned by societal impacts of their behaviour.
They can only operate in a framework created by politicians through legislation. Politicians are also subject to ambition and greed - dominated by a need for control, social position and recognition rather than mainly money.
To make large amounts of money it is much better to sit outside government influencing policy and legislation, rather than inside subject to all sorts of intrusive scrutiny.
Politicians have to be elected. Those who fail are simply neutered - incapable of that to which they aspire. At a very simplistic level they do so by pressing one of two buttons:
This is probably why the nutters (no names, no pack drill) on the extreme right or left of political debate in this country stand little chance of power. So politically the UK sways slightly right or left of centre - certainly the case for the last 30 years post Thatcher.
Boris seems to have worked out a way to claim both left and right street cred (for the moment) - the party of fiscal prudence spending more on education, the NHS and levelling up.
Bankers, hedge fund managers, business owners see money as the key measure of personal success. They enjoy that which money buys and do that which is necessary to achieve their goals. They are largely (not wholly) unconcerned by societal impacts of their behaviour.
They can only operate in a framework created by politicians through legislation. Politicians are also subject to ambition and greed - dominated by a need for control, social position and recognition rather than mainly money.
To make large amounts of money it is much better to sit outside government influencing policy and legislation, rather than inside subject to all sorts of intrusive scrutiny.
Politicians have to be elected. Those who fail are simply neutered - incapable of that to which they aspire. At a very simplistic level they do so by pressing one of two buttons:
- we will create the freedoms which enable you also to become more wealthy. Normally a party of lower taxation, less legislation, greater freedoms - Tory promises!
- we will control the abuse you suffer at the hands of the unelected wealthy elite and ensure fair shares for all - Socialist promises!
This is probably why the nutters (no names, no pack drill) on the extreme right or left of political debate in this country stand little chance of power. So politically the UK sways slightly right or left of centre - certainly the case for the last 30 years post Thatcher.
Boris seems to have worked out a way to claim both left and right street cred (for the moment) - the party of fiscal prudence spending more on education, the NHS and levelling up.
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
He talks the talk but doesn't do the walk. An endless trail of lies. He promised lower gas prices after brexit to mention just one. He's blagging on about climate change now in spite of being a sceptic (zero science education) knowing that he won't follow up and most likely won't have to as he will be out of office soon anyway. UK haven't met earlier targets yet.
China is doing as expected - backing off from coal and going sustainable, more quickly than any other state.
Terry - Somerset
Established Member
UK carbon based energy production is currently (past year) ~2% coal and ~40% gas.
To save the planet less emphasis must be placed on "the economy" and capitalism needs to be watered down with a hint of communism because many people will not change unless faced with having to change. Choice is aimed at making money, just look at the world of fashion and ask yourself what fashion really is. It is a fictitious creation aimed at making some people rich by convincing people to behave like sheep, ie you should wear what we tell you to be like other fashionable people at the expense of the planet whilst helping the economy. The good point about a hint of communism is that choice becomes limited, do we really need a choice of fifty cars and a dozen brands, hundreds of choices when it comes to footware and many other products. If choice is reduced then quality and product life cycle will increase but at the expense of making money. Modern way is to sell products with shorter life cycles to increase future purchases, cars, white goods and new houses all have shorter lifespans to keep sales up.
Trainee neophyte
Established Member
Many people might say that the free market is exactly what is needed when change is required, not more heavy - handed government dictats. It looks like there isn't going to be enough gas to power the UK through the winter - at least not enough affordable gas, which is almost the same thing. Free market innovation should be the most efficient way of dealing with this, but government intervention means there is no such thing as a free market - a bit of a conundrum. Are we enjoying our central planning yet?
The fun thing is that there is plenty of gas, but the insane green policies mean that you aren't allowed to use it, and the blame is laid squarely at the feet of "the market". Picking a fight with Russia may also not be the brightest thing to do if you live on an island with no food or fuel security, but you do you, as it were. As I understand it, this price crisis is entirely manufactured for climate catastrophe purposes. Enjoy your new normal of owning nothing, having nothing (not even warmth), and being happy about it.
In the world according to Jacob, central planning hasn't worked, so we obviously need even more central planning. This despite proof over generations that central planning fails even more spectacularly than the free market ever does. Serious question: everyone needs to become poorer, for the good of all - will that apply to the billionaires, too?
I am constantly astonished that the sheep are enthusiastically clamouring to be shorn repeatedly, and even slaughtered ("we need to reduce the population"). The UK is the most bizarre society: a nation of violent, agressive, and yet utterly compliant and forelock - tugging serfs, ruled by a multi - generational hidden elite with politicians as the buffer between the two. I'm not sure if it is 1984 and believing two mutually exclusive ideas at the same time, or just the Red Queen and believing 6 impossible things before breakfast.
Sorry - I'm obviously feeling a bit peevish this morning.
RobinBHM
Established Member
that’s spin not truth.
social care plan being a perfect example: it’s sold as social care, but for the next 3 years (ie this govt term), it can all be spent on the NHS.
And that money going into the NHS can be funnelled into private healthcare contracts……to companies which have Tory MPs paid as advisors.
To put it bluntly the social care plan makes the poor pay more tax to end in the pockets of the wealthy.
RobinBHM
Established Member
Free markets are not an efficient way to deal with this.
Free markets create businesses whose purpose is to maximise profits for the shareholders not the customers.
Keith Cocker
Established Member
Alpha ++ for your first paragraph
Please rewrite your second and resubmit for remarking.
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
Thanks for the marks!Alpha ++ for your first paragraph
Please rewrite your second and resubmit for remarking.
I believe the second proposition however - the bottom line of socialist thought from way back before Marx has been about how to run society in a fair and practical way. That's the basic ideology. In fact all modern governments are socialistic to some extent - it's the only way. Many failures along the way of course.
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
They've made a great leap for growth and now are backing off China pledge to stop funding coal projects ‘buys time for emissions target’ much as expected, and widely accepted as good news.
One dubious advantage of a totalitarian state is that they can enforce necessary measures without having to negotiate with vested interests, the fossil fuel industry in particular, and popular opinion of course.
They are probably leading the world in sustainable energy technologies too. Green leap forward: China boosts renewable energy capacity | Upstream Online
stocks market is rich’s protection to money erosion - even more then that - there are forces that pushes money print just to keep stocks growing - what kind of insane society shows stock prices on tv news as a proxy for growth?
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
The idea is to normalise and weave crude capitalism into the fabric of everybody's lives - with savings in "investments" at it's crudest in the form of buy-to-let landlordism.
Even those who can't cash in are deluded into thinking they might at some point in the future and that this is how normal life works.
Terry - Somerset
Established Member
Capitalism and socialism are BOTH ideologies. The differences have been well rehearsed on this forum and much more widely and there is no point in repeating old arguments.
Simple observation shows that extreme ends of the spectrum are thoroughly unpalatable, and neither has been proven to work consistently. The argument (IMHO) then becomes a debate as to which side of a middle range is preferred.
This is very shallow unless there is real consensus on what the goals are - a utiitarian greatest good, most rapid progress, societal fairness, moral and ethical considerations etc.
Further complexity is that even fundamentally common issues may need different approaches - eg: rapid progress in green energy (generation and efficient use) may best be achieved through capitalist enterprise, but the "greatest good" comes through sharing progress with everybody.
It seems very polarised views on ideology are very flawed - politicians are left trying to find an acceptable AND electable balance. I have little sympathy for them!!
Simple observation shows that extreme ends of the spectrum are thoroughly unpalatable, and neither has been proven to work consistently. The argument (IMHO) then becomes a debate as to which side of a middle range is preferred.
This is very shallow unless there is real consensus on what the goals are - a utiitarian greatest good, most rapid progress, societal fairness, moral and ethical considerations etc.
Further complexity is that even fundamentally common issues may need different approaches - eg: rapid progress in green energy (generation and efficient use) may best be achieved through capitalist enterprise, but the "greatest good" comes through sharing progress with everybody.
It seems very polarised views on ideology are very flawed - politicians are left trying to find an acceptable AND electable balance. I have little sympathy for them!!
Its pretty simple.
The world economy shut down.
The world economy started up.
Supply trails demand.
I can want a Mars Bar now, I can have the money to buy a Mars Bar now, but someone has to make the Mars Bar and that takes time if you've mothballed your Mars Bar factory.
So the price of available (now slightly moldy, one imagines) Mars Bars is bid up by me & all my chums trying to buy Mars Bars.
And this is true for timber, steel, fuel, things that are made using fuel (i.e. everything), etc.
This inflation will pass once everyone has all their ducks in a row again.
While we're here lets dispel some economic myths.
1) Central Banks do not control the money supply. 97% of money is created by banks. Banks control the money supply.
2) Government 'debt' isn't debt. Its private sector savings at the central bank. Do the math. If you can print money, why would you borrow it? And before anyone says "InFLaShun!!!" how does borrowing money change that equation? If you're prepared to accept 0.5% return on a Gilt, there was exactly 0% chance of you running out & buying a Ferrari rather than saving that money somewhere.
3) Monopolies are more efficient than 'the market'. They have no marketing costs, no duplication of effort & enormous buying power. If we'd had a government energy monopoly, we could have bought up billions in forward gas contracts a year ago when the price was buttons & we'd be sitting pretty right now.
4) There's no such thing as 'tax payers money'. All taxes are destroyed on receipt. If you can print an unlimited amount of money, why would you need someone else's money? To control inflation. So, what can you not do with money you remove from the economy in order to control inflation? Spend it. You can't spend it.
Technically, all money is created as an IOU. So when one pound is created it is created as a one pound 'liability' of the state and a one pound private 'asset'.
When that pound is returned to the state, the liability is extinguished. Poof! Gone. No money.
The world economy shut down.
The world economy started up.
Supply trails demand.
I can want a Mars Bar now, I can have the money to buy a Mars Bar now, but someone has to make the Mars Bar and that takes time if you've mothballed your Mars Bar factory.
So the price of available (now slightly moldy, one imagines) Mars Bars is bid up by me & all my chums trying to buy Mars Bars.
And this is true for timber, steel, fuel, things that are made using fuel (i.e. everything), etc.
This inflation will pass once everyone has all their ducks in a row again.
While we're here lets dispel some economic myths.
1) Central Banks do not control the money supply. 97% of money is created by banks. Banks control the money supply.
2) Government 'debt' isn't debt. Its private sector savings at the central bank. Do the math. If you can print money, why would you borrow it? And before anyone says "InFLaShun!!!" how does borrowing money change that equation? If you're prepared to accept 0.5% return on a Gilt, there was exactly 0% chance of you running out & buying a Ferrari rather than saving that money somewhere.
3) Monopolies are more efficient than 'the market'. They have no marketing costs, no duplication of effort & enormous buying power. If we'd had a government energy monopoly, we could have bought up billions in forward gas contracts a year ago when the price was buttons & we'd be sitting pretty right now.
4) There's no such thing as 'tax payers money'. All taxes are destroyed on receipt. If you can print an unlimited amount of money, why would you need someone else's money? To control inflation. So, what can you not do with money you remove from the economy in order to control inflation? Spend it. You can't spend it.
Technically, all money is created as an IOU. So when one pound is created it is created as a one pound 'liability' of the state and a one pound private 'asset'.
When that pound is returned to the state, the liability is extinguished. Poof! Gone. No money.
Last edited:
Shame all the hot air our government produces cannot be used, maybe we could use the ball shiet instead!
Trainee neophyte
Established Member
I'm very happy with the idea that money is destroyed on repayment of debt to the bank, given that the bank created it in the first place. (Being an honest borrower and repaying your debt is deflationary, so you should, in an ideal world, default on your loan for the benefit and enrichment of all). I hadn't considered that tax receipts are a similar mechanism. Which is interesting because the USA spends, roughly speaking, all its tax receipts on running the government, and then an equal amount it doesn't have running it's military. The USA having the reserve currency means it must send dollars in vast amounts all around the world so they can be used in trade, and the UK hanging on its coat tails does the same to a lesser degree. The fun part is if/when the eurodollar/petrodollar system stops, whereupon all those trillions of unwanted dollars and pounds run back home to mummy in eyewatering numbers. I only mention this because the USA seems hell bent on making sure the current system stops as soon as possible. I wonder why?
Also interesting to note that the forever wars only exist to control inflation and aid international trade: they really should explain this to exploded Afghan wedding parties, who apparently died for the benefit of the international financial system. But then we already knew that, didn't we.
Societies that use stock as a storage of value and a means of distributing earnings both to individuals, and widely here (and there, I'm sure) to regional and national benefit welfare and pension funds.
In short, if individuals in the states had to fund the pensions without market earnings, the pensions wouldn't be there for state employees.
If you fall into the party of folks who say "all profits are bad and all stock market and corporate earnings should be minimized or gone", you have no idea how much of what you do day to day is subsidized by market earnings. They are an indication of a society's efficiency (to be able to do something and have excess left over after it's paid out) to hand to others. The incentive to make stock values bigger benefits more than just folks with stock options. It benefits everyone. Sometimes it's pretty hard on publicly listed company employees and customers, but it's idealistic to believe that replacing those jobs with private employment away from listed jobs is better - it's sometimes less work, but generally less pay.
- Status
Similar threads
