Money: The greatest scam in history.

[Hibernia&Alba]

Following on from a post I made in the Labour Party thread, here's a good explanation of the system which rules our lives; a system which, we are told, is the meaning of our lives, yet is never discussed and never explained. Instead there is a tacist and unquestioning attitude that this money system is unalterable and entirely natural. The alchemy of the system should provoke serious questions, yet we continue to base our lives around it. 'Sound money'; 'no magic money tree'; 'financially literate' - all are phrases thrown around, yet, when did you ever hear a discussion of the fundamentals of said system? It's bizarre. Take a look and think about it.


https://youtu.be/pKmJowhn3bs

[Pete]

Oddly enough, I’m actually studying the subject of money just now as part of a module. How it came about, how it has developed, how it (or more specifically, how debt) makes the “world go round” etc...

One academic (Michael Sandel) has a firm viewpoint that the rapid changes in the role and meaning of money result in the increasing commodification of too many areas of our lives. The market economy has now grown arms and legs and become so integrated in our lives we are now a market society, where practically anything is up for sale. This is intensifying inequality and if not checked, could become disastrous.

I agree with him and it’s bizarre to think that this system, which involves exchanges of things with absolutely no physical value, dictates practically every aspect of our lives.

[Hibernia&Alba]

Oddly enough, I’m actually studying the subject of money just now as part of a module. How it came about, how it has developed, how it (or more specifically, how debt) makes the “world go round” etc...

One academic (Michael Sandel) has a firm viewpoint that the rapid changes in the role and meaning of money result in the increasing commodification of too many areas of our lives. The market economy has now grown arms and legs and become so integrated in our lives we are now a market society, where practically anything is up for sale. This is intensifying inequality and if not checked, could become disastrous.

I agree with him and it’s bizarre to think that this system, which involves exchanges of things with absolutely no physical value, dictates practically every aspect of our lives.

There is a wonderful book, 'Where Does Money Come From', by Josh Ryan-Collins, Tony Greenham, Richard Werner and Andrew Jackson. We live our lives in accordance with an artificial construct, but fool ourselves into thinking its laws are as natural as gravity or molecular structure, when this is entirely wrong. Economics is a man made construct - only human beings use a money system - yet it controls our societies and dictates how we live our lives. How many of us ever ponder what life would be like without a money system?

An excellent documentary, based upon the book I mention. Might help you, Pete.


https://youtu.be/XcGh1Dex4Yo

[G15 Hibs]

The first three chapters of 'Capital' are fascinating on where the concept comes from. Bit of a slog mind!

[Hibernia&Alba]

The first three chapters of 'Capital' are fascinating on where the concept comes from. Bit of a slog mind!

Indeed, not light reading but one of the most important works ever written.

[GreenLake]

There is nothing to see here, move along.

[Hibernia&Alba]

There is nothing to see here, move along.

:agree:

Far more important things happening in the world. Is X-Factor back on?

The 97 per cent owned documentary should be watched by everybody. It should be compulsory for every child in their final year of high school.

[adhibs]

Oddly enough, I’m actually studying the subject of money just now as part of a module. How it came about, how it has developed, how it (or more specifically, how debt) makes the “world go round” etc...

One academic (Michael Sandel) has a firm viewpoint that the rapid changes in the role and meaning of money result in the increasing commodification of too many areas of our lives. The market economy has now grown arms and legs and become so integrated in our lives we are now a market society, where practically anything is up for sale. This is intensifying inequality and if not checked, could become disastrous.

I agree with him and it’s bizarre to think that this system, which involves exchanges of things with absolutely no physical value, dictates practically every aspect of our lives.

I done that module last year. Thought it was enjoyable overall, and found Michael Sandel interesting.

[Pete]

I done that module last year. Thought it was enjoyable overall, and found Michael Sandel interesting.

Well you’d better clear your PM inbox. 😁

To be honest I’m loving the module. It’s very broad based and a good platform for so many subjects but I’m maybe starting to overthink it. Fascinating way of looking at the world.

Started reading capital but got bogged down. I’ll stick with the bullet points and the idiots version before I move onto the philosophy part of my studies 😆

[Beefster]

It’s not just money. I read Sapiens not that long ago and the author argues that pretty much every law/rule/system that we live our lives by is just a shared myth.

[Hibernia&Alba]

Well you’d better clear your PM inbox. 😁

To be honest I’m loving the module. It’s very broad based and a good platform for so many subjects but I’m maybe starting to overthink it. Fascinating way of looking at the world.

Started reading capital but got bogged down. I’ll stick with the bullet points and the idiots version before I move onto the philosophy part of my studies 😆

I would suggest a study guide to accompany Capital, because it's easy to lose the wood for the trees in such a detailed study. The best I have come across dates back to the 1970s, 'The Structure of Marx's World View', by John McMurty. It goes through all the key ideas in plain English and is excellent.

[Fife-Hibee]

I'm learning a lot about this, using my internet connection and laptop that I paid for with paper rectangles. :cb

In all seriousness though, what I find astonishing is the sheer volume of people who actually buy into the lie that there is a world wide debt crisis that we all need to pay for.

All money comes into our posession through the central banking network. But in order for the money to be obtained from the bank, it has to be borrowed. Borrowing money comes with interest that then needs to be paid back. But in order for the interest to be covered, more money needs to be printed, which then results in more money being borrowed from the bank to pay back the interest, resulting in even higher interest debt taking its place.

There's more debt than money that physically exists, so the only option is to print new money and borrow that. Which ultimately results in that debt figure getting even higher. It can only ever go up and can never go down. :crazy:

[Hibernia&Alba]

I'm learning a lot about this, using my internet connection and laptop that I paid for with paper rectangles. :cb

In all seriousness though, what I find astonishing is the sheer volume of people who actually buy into the lie that there is a world wide debt crisis that we all need to pay for.

All money comes into our posession through the central banking network. But in order for the money to be obtained from the bank, it has to be borrowed. Borrowing money comes with interest that then needs to be paid back. But in order for the interest to be covered, more money needs to be printed, which then results in more money being borrowed from the bank to pay back the interest, resulting in even higher interest debt taking its place.

There's more debt than money that physically exists, so the only option is to print new money and borrow that. Which ultimately results in that debt figure getting even higher. It can only ever go up and can never go down. :crazy:

Only three per cent of U.K. 'wealth' is currency printed/minted by the central bank; 97 per cent is debt created by commercial banks. If you take out a loan, the economy 'grows' by that amount, though the money doesn't exist; it has been invented on a computer. If you haven't watched the documentary above, give it a watch.

[Fife-Hibee]

Only three per cent of U.K. 'wealth' is currency printed/minted by the central bank; 97 per cent is debt created by commercial banks. If you take out a loan, the economy 'grows' by that amount, though the money doesn't exist; it has been invented on a computer. If you haven't watched the documentary above, give it a watch.

My point is about the interest on that cash. Whether it's physical or digital. All money carries interest, therefore the interest can never be paid off, because it requires more borrowing, which results in more interest. It's a never ending cycle of ever increasing interest.

[adhibs]

Well you’d better clear your PM inbox. ��

To be honest I’m loving the module. It’s very broad based and a good platform for so many subjects but I’m maybe starting to overthink it. Fascinating way of looking at the world.

Started reading capital but got bogged down. I’ll stick with the bullet points and the idiots version before I move onto the philosophy part of my studies ��


haha, feel free if you have any questions. although my memory is pretty brutal, so doubt ill be any help :greengrin

I'm now doing DD213 - Environment and Society. It builds on some of the ideas and concepts of DD103, and have to say I'm enjoying the familiarity.

[Hibernia&Alba]

'No magic money tree'. Then what is quantitative easing other than the government creating money from nothing? Since 2008 hundreds of billions of pounds has been created from nothing, in order to keep the banks afloat. In the USA the figure is around $26 trillion. This only 'exists' because the central bank says it does, hence confidence in the system is everything. When confidence collapses, the whole system collapses because the myth can no longer sustain itself.

In the eighties Thatcher used to say that government needed to work like a household budget, which is nonsense, as international finance doesn't work anything like a household budget. How many households can print currency or create loans? You still hear the mantra of 'living within our means', which is either (a) ignorance of the system or (b) willful misrepresentation. The documentary above and the accompanying book (well worth reading) argue that in the main it is ignorance by politicians about what money actually is and how it is created.

The vast majority of us are not aware of the mythical basis of the money system. Instead we take it on face value and don't question it.

[lyonhibs]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdF76QhVEFE&t=0m22s

A slightly more light hearted look at things, but raises an interesting point that merits a bit of thought IMO.

[Hibernia&Alba]

This is a succinct explanation of the myth of the money system:


https://youtu.be/EC0G7pY4wRE

[DetroitHibs]

Good book worth reading is, The Creature from Jekyll Island. It's about America coming of the gold standard and all the shenanigans.

[Jones28]

Heard on the news today about a construction company in SE England posting profit decreases of 25% - they only made about £400 million.

[ColintonHibs]

Following on from a post I made in the Labour Party thread, here's a good explanation of the system which rules our lives; a system which, we are told, is the meaning of our lives, yet is never discussed and never explained. Instead there is a tacist and unquestioning attitude that this money system is unalterable and entirely natural. The alchemy of the system should provoke serious questions, yet we continue to base our lives around it. 'Sound money'; 'no magic money tree'; 'financially literate' - all are phrases thrown around, yet, when did you ever hear a discussion of the fundamentals of said system? It's bizarre. Take a look and think about it.


https://youtu.be/pKmJowhn3bs

Money is one of the best things ever invented and working harder to make money keeps me focused and sane. Anyone can start from the bottom and become rich especially with the internet. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just making excuses and refuses to go out their way to learn the skills or pay to learn from someone making money.

Fiat currencies always hyperinflate and collapse but the idea of a tool to get things done is necessary. We can't work for pigs or food when we have such abundance. There needs to be something like money. Imagine your boss saying "yeah i'll give you this house if you work 5 years" and then your boss leaves for Spain or something. We need a form of money.

[Fife-Hibee]

There's a saying (or perhaps i've just invented it). But if you're prepared to give up time for money, then you're giving up the most valuable thing of all.

[ColintonHibs]

There's a saying (or perhaps i've just invented it). But if you're prepared to give up time for money, then you're giving up the most valuable thing of all.

That’s why people need to spend their time building residual income streams as you put the work in once and get paid again and again

[Fife-Hibee]

That’s why people need to spend their time building residual income streams as you put the work in once and get paid again and again

Yet, if everybody did this, nobody would be any better off. They would all be wasting their lives trying to out do one another, rather than just enjoying every moment of the precious limited time they have.

[NAE NOOKIE]

Thanks to the OP fascinating film :rolleyes:

[Tornadoes70]

Money's one of the greatest inventions of all time. its flexible and normally rewards those who work hard for the greater good. Those who criticise it are dictators and hard of understanding.

The snp are busy attempting to deprive those at the bottom of society while rewarding those at the top end. I'm just back from down south where they're enjoying still paying at least 4 pounds a litre bottle of spirits cheaper than those in Scotland directly because of the snp. A ludicrous situation that mostly effects the poorest in Scotland. Get these self serving puritans snp to history.

[Hibernia&Alba]

Money's one of the greatest inventions of all time. its flexible and normally rewards those who work hard for the greater good. Those who criticise it are dictators and hard of understanding.

The snp are busy attempting to deprive those at the bottom of society while rewarding those at the top end. I'm just back from down south where they're enjoying still paying at least 4 pounds a litre bottle of spirits cheaper than those in Scotland directly because of the snp. A ludicrous situation that mostly effects the poorest in Scotland. Get these self serving puritans snp to history.

Perhaps, but the pertient questions are: where does money actually come from and who controls it?

Well, a fact not commonly known is that almost all the 'money' in the system literally appears from nowhere in the form of debt, created by private corporations i.e. banks, which are rentiers. Any loan, mortgage etc is nothing more than the 'borrower's' promise to re-pay with interest something that only exists by common agreement, but not in reality. The bank puts a number in the account of the borrower; that number represents nothing but itself i.e. there is nothing behind it other than the borrower's promise to transfer the number back, plus a larger number in the form of interest.

In essence the system exists upon a mutual and tacit agreement to suspend our disbelief. It isn't actually real. This sounds bonkers, but it's true.

[danhibees1875]

Money's one of the greatest inventions of all time. its flexible and normally rewards those who work hard for the greater good. Those who criticise it are dictators and hard of understanding.

The snp are busy attempting to deprive those at the bottom of society while rewarding those at the top end. I'm just back from down south where they're enjoying still paying at least 4 pounds a litre bottle of spirits cheaper than those in Scotland directly because of the snp. A ludicrous situation that mostly effects the poorest in Scotland. Get these self serving puritans snp to history.

It's a policy motivated by health, not money, to bring in the minimum pricing on alcohol. It's not exactly at an unfair level either is it, £20 for a litre of spirit. The tinkering of policies around alcohol has had a positive impact on alcohol-related death, although they are still the highest in the UK so I'd expect more to come on that front.


I'm curious though, as someone who sees the SNP as gladly taking the poor and rewarding the rich what is your take on the widening higher income tax gap between Scotland and rUK?:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-46522968

If you earn less than the average wage, you pay less tax; if you earn more, you pay more (with a reasonably substantial jump at £43/44k at that). These facts seem at odds with your rhetoric?

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Perhaps, but the pertient questions are: where does money actually come from and who controls it?

Well, a fact not commonly known is that almost all the 'money' in the system literally appears from nowhere in the form of debt, created by private corporations i.e. banks, which are rentiers. Any loan, mortgage etc is nothing more than the 'borrower's' promise to re-pay with interest something that only exists by common agreement, but not in reality. The bank puts a number in the account of the borrower; that number represents nothing but itself i.e. there is nothing behind it other than the borrower's promise to transfer the number back, plus a larger number in the form of interest.

In essence the system exists upon a mutual and tacit agreement to suspend our disbelief. It isn't actually real. This sounds bonkers, but it's true.

I know yourr into philosophy, and its a very pbilosophical question... if both parties believe something is true,and real, does it become so?

But surely, at least initially, money was basically a universal way of representing value, normally based on gold, jewels, land etc ie something tangible?

I accept that modern banking is far removed from that, but the money is still based on something (even if it is crap, but thats another discussion). I get loaned a mortgage based on my income (my value) and the value of my property. The bank then borrow that from markets, and the whole thing goes around.

I know people point to QE as creating money (which it essentially is) but by doing so there are major economic effects, normally considered downsides (inflation etc)

As with much of the capitalist system we have, it is tye worst option for us to live with, except for all the other options that we have tried.

Thats not to say there isnt a better way for the future... but let's hear it.

Ultimately apart from the basics of nature, everything is a human construct. Politics for example is a human construct, parliament is literally only bricks and mortar, with zero power or authority, but for what we collectively give it.

There is no such thing as a human right, but for an idea created by humans. Murder is only a crime because we decide it is. Money and our economic system is similar.

But ultimately, i can take the note out of my wallet and give it to someone as an exchange of value for a good or service. It is real, because we have made it real.

[Tornadoes70]

It's a policy motivated by health, not money, to bring in the minimum pricing on alcohol. It's not exactly at an unfair level either is it, £20 for a litre of spirit. The tinkering of policies around alcohol has had a positive impact on alcohol-related death, although they are still the highest in the UK so I'd expect more to come on that front.


I'm curious though, as someone who sees the SNP as gladly taking the poor and rewarding the rich what is your take on the widening higher income tax gap between Scotland and rUK?:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-46522968

If you earn less than the average wage, you pay less tax; if you earn more, you pay more (with a reasonably substantial jump at £43/44k at that). These facts seem at odds with your rhetoric?

The snp acted as puritan moralist dictators against the poorest folk in society when seeking to directly deprive them of affordability of alcohol. The middle classes and the richest in society won't have been overwhelmingly affected by the significant price increases that was a direct hit against only the least well off in society.

I saved over £70 when buying in bulk in England prior to returning to Scotland. It won't alter the amount I drink as I'll consume the same over a long period of time however I would have had to fork out the not inconsiderable extra £70 here in Scotland for the same amount of alcohol. A ludicrous and puritanical policy attack on the least well off in Scotland from the snp. I'll definitely be taking a trip to Carlisle every few months as the savings when buying in bulk are well worth it.

[Tornadoes70]

Perhaps, but the pertient questions are: where does money actually come from and who controls it?

Well, a fact not commonly known is that almost all the 'money' in the system literally appears from nowhere in the form of debt, created by private corporations i.e. banks, which are rentiers. Any loan, mortgage etc is nothing more than the 'borrower's' promise to re-pay with interest something that only exists by common agreement, but not in reality. The bank puts a number in the account of the borrower; that number represents nothing but itself i.e. there is nothing behind it other than the borrower's promise to transfer the number back, plus a larger number in the form of interest.

In essence the system exists upon a mutual and tacit agreement to suspend our disbelief. It isn't actually real. This sounds bonkers, but it's true.

Such things develop over extremely long periods of time. Firstly it would have been simply an exchange of whatever the traders had to offer each other in the way of material goods probably in the form of produce or labor or anything really however governments would have later set their brains into developing much more flexible transactions that worked across the world with paper money being an ingenious way of conducting trade and business that works for all. Now they're attempting to transfer us into increasing paperless electronic transactions.

Very simply put of course as I've never given it that much thought but most things are originally very simply devised concepts normally by entrepreneurs and developed into more complex ones by governments over extremely long periods.

[Killiehibbie]

The snp acted as puritan moralist dictators against the poorest folk in society when seeking to directly deprive them of affordability of alcohol. The middle classes and the richest in society won't have been overwhelmingly affected by the significant price increases that was a direct hit against only the least well off in society.

I saved over £70 when buying in bulk in England prior to returning to Scotland. It won't alter the amount I drink as I'll consume the same over a long period of time however I would have had to fork out the not inconsiderable extra £70 here in Scotland for the same amount of alcohol. A ludicrous and puritanical policy attack on the least well off in Scotland from the snp. I'll definitely be taking a trip to Carlisle every few months as the savings when buying in bulk are well worth it.
I think the cost of driving to Carlisle would take most of the savings. Handy if you live in Gretna or happen to be passing on the way from somewhere.

[Tornadoes70]

I think the cost of driving to Carlisle would take most of the savings. Handy if you live in Gretna or happen to be passing on the way from somewhere.

£20 for petrol to Carlisle and back for me so still saving well over £50. Carlisle's just 10 miles from Scotland. Well worth the journey.

Agree with you that its even better for those living in the borders who enjoy a drink at home who'll be travelling to Carlisle on a regular basis and saving considerable sums of money.

[danhibees1875]

The snp acted as puritan moralist dictators against the poorest folk in society when seeking to directly deprive them of affordability of alcohol. The middle classes and the richest in society won't have been overwhelmingly affected by the significant price increases that was a direct hit against only the least well off in society.

I saved over £70 when buying in bulk in England prior to returning to Scotland. It won't alter the amount I drink as I'll consume the same over a long period of time however I would have had to fork out the not inconsiderable extra £70 here in Scotland for the same amount of alcohol. A ludicrous and puritanical policy attack on the least well off in Scotland from the snp. I'll definitely be taking a trip to Carlisle every few months as the savings when buying in bulk are well worth it.

Scotland has a bad relationship with alcohol, and a disproportionally high level of alcohol related deaths it was therefore, IMO, the correct decision to have some form of state intervention to help combat that and reduce alcohol consumtpion. Multi-buy discounts, happy hours, and now minimum pricing have all came into effect which see quite a disparity between regulations north and south of the border and the upshot of that has been a reduction in alcohol related deaths at a higher rate than anywhere else in the UK - so the policies are working.

If you have weighed up the pro's and con's and decided it's worth it then fair enough, there isn't currently anything that can be done to stop you. I would imagine that over the next few years you will see those savings decrease or eventually nullify once England adopt a similar policy to alcohol pricing. I'm surprised you save that much though, whenever I'm in England I have a wee look at the alcohol prices and rarely see anything cheaper than minimum pricing anyway (A large pack Strongbow Dark Fruits was on offer and bang on 50p/unit last time I was down).


I noticed you avoided the second part of my post about the tax changes and how they were very much at odds with what you're saying about attacking the poor and giving to the better off? Unfortunately, people can't drive down to Carisle to pay their taxes in bulk. :boo hoo:

[Tornadoes70]

Scotland has a bad relationship with alcohol, and a disproportionally high level of alcohol related deaths it was therefore, IMO, the correct decision to have some form of state intervention to help combat that and reduce alcohol consumtpion. Multi-buy discounts, happy hours, and now minimum pricing have all came into effect which see quite a disparity between regulations north and south of the border and the upshot of that has been a reduction in alcohol related deaths at a higher rate than anywhere else in the UK - so the policies are working.

If you have weighed up the pro's and con's and decided it's worth it then fair enough, there isn't currently anything that can be done to stop you. I would imagine that over the next few years you will see those savings decrease or eventually nullify once England adopt a similar policy to alcohol pricing. I'm surprised you save that much though, whenever I'm in England I have a wee look at the alcohol prices and rarely see anything cheaper than minimum pricing anyway (A large pack Strongbow Dark Fruits was on offer and bang on 50p/unit last time I was down).


I noticed you avoided the second part of my post about the tax changes and how they were very much at odds with what you're saying about attacking the poor and giving to the better off? Unfortunately, people can't drive down to Carisle to pay their taxes in bulk. :boo hoo:

Spirits are £4 a litre cheaper and a box of low alcohol wine of my choice is £7 cheaper in England than here in Scotland. The bulk buy I bought would have easily cost over £70 more here in Scotland. I was on the way back from a trip in England, however, the petrol cost there and back to Carlisle is around £20 for me and its well worth travelling to Carlisle every few months for savings of well over £50 a trip.

Puritanical 'state intervention' in this case directly targeted the poorest in society for the fact is the middle classes and rich won't be affected.

I'll certainly be making trips down to Carlisle in the years ahead whereby avoiding the snp totalitarianism unless England follows suit.

[McSwanky]

Spirits are £4 a litre cheaper and a box of low alcohol wine of my choice is £7 cheaper in England than here in Scotland. The bulk buy I bought would have easily cost over £70 more here in Scotland. I was on the way back from a trip in England, however, the petrol cost there and back to Carlisle is around £20 for me and its well worth travelling to Carlisle every few months for savings of well over £50 a trip.

Puritanical 'state intervention' in this case directly targeted the poorest in society for the fact is the middle classes and rich won't be affected.

I'll certainly be making trips down to Carlisle in the years ahead whereby avoiding the snp totalitarianism unless England follows suit.

If Labour were so dead set against minimum pricing, why didn't they vote against it instead of abstaining? And why did Malcolm Chisholm (Labour) vote for it?

[danhibees1875]

Spirits are £4 a litre cheaper and a box of low alcohol wine of my choice is £7 cheaper in England than here in Scotland. The bulk buy I bought would have easily cost over £70 more here in Scotland. I was on the way back from a trip in England, however, the petrol cost there and back to Carlisle is around £20 for me and its well worth travelling to Carlisle every few months for savings of well over £50 a trip.

Puritanical 'state intervention' in this case directly targeted the poorest in society for the fact is the middle classes and rich won't be affected.

I'll certainly be making trips down to Carlisle in the years ahead whereby avoiding the snp totalitarianism unless England follows suit.

I was surprised you could save that much, but I do believe you. Although they must be giving away that low alcohol wine. :greengrin

There's maybe a correlation the poorest will be helped most by the health benefits, but I think all of the policies are generally there to help everyone regardless of class.

Will you be taking orders for your next trip? :wink:

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

Spirits are £4 a litre cheaper and a box of low alcohol wine of my choice is £7 cheaper in England than here in Scotland. The bulk buy I bought would have easily cost over £70 more here in Scotland. I was on the way back from a trip in England, however, the petrol cost there and back to Carlisle is around £20 for me and its well worth travelling to Carlisle every few months for savings of well over £50 a trip.

Puritanical 'state intervention' in this case directly targeted the poorest in society for the fact is the middle classes and rich won't be affected.

I'll certainly be making trips down to Carlisle in the years ahead whereby avoiding the snp totalitarianism unless England follows suit.

Make sure you go on a Tuesday, you'll get a pint in The Caley for £1.55! 🍺👍

[Tornadoes70]

Make sure you go on a Tuesday, you'll get a pint in The Caley for £1.55! ����

:aok:

Great shout mate, cracking price.

I frequently stop off in Carlisle on the way back from trips down south and Botchergate's always a very lively decent night out. The Hallmark or the Crown and Mitre are the hotels of choice at least until the County gets its long overdue renovation and I might give it a go again.

[Tornadoes70]

I was surprised you could save that much, but I do believe you. Although they must be giving away that low alcohol wine. :greengrin

There's maybe a correlation the poorest will be helped most by the health benefits, but I think all of the policies are generally there to help everyone regardless of class.

Will you be taking orders for your next trip? :wink:

Very little room in the boot with the amount of bottles and boxes I brought back, sorry mate.

The low alcohol 7.5% wine was around £5 a box here in Scotland until the minimum pricing was introduced with it increasing to its now around £12 a box price thereafter. They're still selling it at around the £5 a box down south.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

Make sure you go on a Tuesday, you'll get a pint in The Caley for £1.55! 🍺👍

IIRC it might be the same 5-8 Mon, Wed- Fri too, handy for the bookies across the road too! Walkabout either £2 or £2.50 all day Mon-Fri too.

[Hibernia&Alba]

How come all threads end up as discussions about drink? It's very Scottish :greengrin

[lapsedhibee]

Any loan, mortgage etc is nothing more than the 'borrower's' promise to re-pay with interest something that only exists by common agreement, but not in reality. The bank puts a number in the account of the borrower; that number represents nothing but itself i.e. there is nothing behind it other than the borrower's promise to transfer the number back, plus a larger number in the form of interest.

In essence the system exists upon a mutual and tacit agreement to suspend our disbelief. It isn't actually real. This sounds bonkers, but it's true.


How come all threads end up as discussions about drink? It's very Scottish :greengrin
Ok I'll deviate for a moment.

Enjoying the thread but your distinction between what's agreed and what's real is a bit off. Is a marriage not real because it results from an agreement? Suspecting you're no Platonist. :wink:

[Hibernia&Alba]

Ok I'll deviate for a moment.

Enjoying the thread but your distinction between what's agreed and what's real is a bit off. Is a marriage not real because it results from an agreement? Suspecting you're no Platonist. :wink:

No, I'm much more a materialist than an idealist :agree:. However, what we call money when we take out a loan, credit card etc is actually just a number written down, with nothing at all behind it. In effect the bank is giving you a number on a computer screen, which they can do because the government licences them. They aren't actually lending you anything more than your own promise to re-pay i.e. return the number, plus an additional number in the form of interest. It's bizarre when you think about it - in fact it's a metaphysical question which involves the nature of reality. We never question it, yet it controls our lives and our society. We agree the rules of a game without realising what the game actually is i.e. we accept the outcome but don't question the axiom. What is the whole thing built upon? The bizarre answer is nothing but trust. The more I think about it, it seems to me the money system is only sustainable because we don't question it. It isn't unique in that, but nothing else has such impact upon how we live.

[Tornadoes70]

No, I'm much more a materialist than an idealist :agree:. However, what we call money when we take out a loan, credit card etc is actually just a number written down, with nothing at all behind it. In effect the bank is giving you a number on a computer screen, which they can do because the government licences them. They aren't actually lending you anything more than your own promise to re-pay i.e. return the number, plus an additional number in the form of interest. It's bizarre when you think about it - in fact it's a metaphysical question which involves the nature of reality. We never question it, yet it controls our lives and our society. We agree the rules of a game without realising what the game actually is i.e. we accept the outcome but don't question the axiom. What is the whole thing built upon? The bizarre answer is nothing.

Freddie Mercury knew.

He was singing 'Nothing really matters, Nothing really matters to me, Anyway the wind blows' way back in the 70's.

Come on mate. We all know paper comes from trees and we're all going to die just a matter of when.

Systems such as trading and lending have been built upon since ancient times. Better than warriors simply taking what they want by force.

[Hibernia&Alba]

Freddie Mercury knew.

He was singing 'Nothing really matters, Nothing really matters to me, Anyway the wind blows' way back in the 70's.

Come on mate. We all know paper comes from trees and we're all going to die just a matter of when.

Systems such as trading and lending have been built upon since ancient times. Better than warriors simply taking what they want by force.

That sounds like nihilism. Personally I'm more of an absurdist on the existential issues; more Camus than Mercury. :wink:

[Tornadoes70]

That sounds like nihilism. Personally I'm more of an absurdist on the existential issues; more Camus than Mercury. :wink:

:greengrin

Had to look Camus up.

Have a drink mate its Saturday night.

I'm away to listen to some Dylan or Tom Petty.

:aok:

[CropleyWasGod]

That sounds like nihilism. Personally I'm more of an absurdist on the existential issues; more Camus than Mercury. :wink:Was Freddie any good in goals, though?

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[Hibernia&Alba]

Was Freddie any good in goals, though?

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

:greengrin

Aye, Camus loved his fitba. His work suggests he was a perfect fit for a Hibs fan :greengrin

I think Freddie preferred playing in the hole. I know, I know.....:taxi

[Tyler Durden]

No, I'm much more a materialist than an idealist :agree:. However, what we call money when we take out a loan, credit card etc is actually just a number written down, with nothing at all behind it. In effect the bank is giving you a number on a computer screen, which they can do because the government licences them. They aren't actually lending you anything more than your own promise to re-pay i.e. return the number, plus an additional number in the form of interest. It's bizarre when you think about it - in fact it's a metaphysical question which involves the nature of reality. We never question it, yet it controls our lives and our society. We agree the rules of a game without realising what the game actually is i.e. we accept the outcome but don't question the axiom. What is the whole thing built upon? The bizarre answer is nothing but trust. The more I think about it, it seems to me the money system is only sustainable because we don't question it. It isn't unique in that, but nothing else has such impact upon how we live.

I understand the point you make here but it's not really accurate to say "with nothing behind it".

There's such a thing now as capital adequacy, Basel regulations and stress testing.

[Hibernia&Alba]

I understand the point you make here but it's not really accurate to say "with nothing behind it".

There's such a thing now as capital adequacy, Basel regulations and stress testing.

But the vast majority of 'money' is debt created from nothing by private banks. When you go to the bank for a loan to buy a car, say £10,000, that amount comes into existence when you sign the loan agreement. It isn't sitting around in somebody's account, waiting to be loaned by the bank. It's created from nothing. There is literally nothing but a number on a screen, sent to the account in your name, which you then agree to send back over a period of time, plus an additional transfer called interest.

It's rentierism: private banks have a licence to create this money at their discretion. They create nothing themselves; they make money by having a licence to create money.

This being the case, how about democratic control of this process? We collectively decide where money creation i.e. loans should be directed, rather than allowing private banks to create these loans in their own interests. As this system controls the lives of every man, woman and child in society, let's vote on it, as we do with the politicians whose decisions likewise affect everyone.

[Tornadoes70]

But the vast majority of 'money' is debt created from nothing by private banks. When you go to the bank for a loan to buy a car, say £10,000, that amount comes into existence when you sign the loan agreement. It isn't sitting around in somebody's account, waiting to be loaned by the bank. It's created from nothing. There is literally nothing but a number on a screen, sent to the account in your name, which you then agree to send back over a period of time, plus an additional transfer called interest.

It's rentierism: private banks have a licence to create this money at their discretion. They create nothing themselves; they make money by having a licence to create money.

This being the case, how about democratic control of this process? We collectively decide where money creation i.e. loans should be directed, rather than allowing private banks to create these loans in their own interests. As this system controls the lives of every man, woman and child in society, let's vote on it, as we do with the politicians whose decisions likewise affect everyone.

Wouldn't voting on it from a table of bureaucrats be actually more empty and worthless than a bunch of experts on money matters scrutinising a loan application?

I'm thinking you're mental mate :aok:

[Hibernia&Alba]

Wouldn't voting on it from a table of bureaucrats be actually more empty and worthless than a bunch of experts on money matters scrutinising a loan application?

I'm thinking you're mental mate :aok:

Charming :rolleyes:

[Tornadoes70]

Charming :rolleyes:

I actually like you mate and learning is very positive!

Like some just pointing out weaknesses and you should view it as an obstacle to overcome.

:thumbsup:

[Hibernia&Alba]

I actually like you mate and learning is very positive!

Like some just pointing out weaknesses and you should view it as an obstacle to overcome.

:thumbsup:

Well thanks for the advice :greengrin

Democratic control would mean local banks run for the community. Thus, rather than private corporations creating 'money' in their own interests, which are often at odds with the public interest e.g. creating housing bubbles, local democratically controlled banks would make decisions based upon the good of the community - kind of like building societies but with a more democratic structure and a wider remit. underpinned by the state but with local control. It's discussed in the 97 per cent owned documentary on page 1 :agree:

That's one option. Or we could go the whole hog via the James Connolly/Wobblies/anarchist route and scrap the money system entirely. All production and distribution is democratically decided in the community; exchange isn't operational in the financial sense. :greengrin

Point being, as the great Chomsky says, we can't talk about democracy in merely the political sense; it requires economic and industrial democracy. You probably think he's mad too :greengrin

[Tornadoes70]

Well thanks for the advice :greengrin

Democratic control would mean local banks run for the community. Thus, rather than private corporations creating 'money' in their own interests, which are often at odds with the public interest e.g. creating housing bubbles, local democratically controlled banks would make decisions based upon the good of the community - kind of like building societies but with a more democratic structure and a wider remit. underpinned by the state but with local control. It's discussed in the 97 per cent owned documentary on page 1 :agree:

That's one option. Or we could go the whole hog via the James Connolly/Wobblies/anarchist route and scrap the money system entirely. All production and distribution is democratically decided in the community; exchange isn't operational in the financial sense. :greengrin

Point being, as the great Chomsky says, we can't talk about democracy in merely the political sense; it requires economic and industrial democracy. You probably think he's mad too :greengrin


Wow

Amazing conjecture!

[Hibernia&Alba]

Wow

Amazing conjecture!
Well it isn't conjecture; it's just an idea for possible alternatives, the aim being a more democratic, just and environmentally sustainable society. Break up the big banks which almost sank us a decade go and create an improvement. A society based upon human need, in which money and the economy serves population, rather than the reverse. Democratic control of the financial system would be central to that. :agree:

[lapsedhibee]

Well it isn't conjecture; it's just an idea for possible alternatives, the aim being a more democratic, just and environmentally sustainable society. Break up the big banks which almost sank us a decade go and create an improvement. A society based upon human need, in which money and the economy serves population, rather than the reverse. Democratic control of the financial system would be central to that. :agree:

But democratic control isn't real either, just an agreement between people to abide by a convention. Shirley you wouldn't want to be in thrall to that? :confused: :wink:

[Hibernia&Alba]

But democratic control isn't real either, just an agreement between people to abide by a convention. Shirley you wouldn't want to be in thrall to that? :confused: :wink:

I contest the point. Decisions taken by human beings are entirely real. In fact, our ability to shape our society is reality, as opposed to the faux reality of the entire financial system. I remain a materialist :wink:

[Killiehibbie]

Well it isn't conjecture; it's just an idea for possible alternatives, the aim being a more democratic, just and environmentally sustainable society. Break up the big banks which almost sank us a decade go and create an improvement. A society based upon human need, in which money and the economy serves population, rather than the reverse. Democratic control of the financial system would be central to that. :agree:
Is that not the idea behind a Credit Union?
I always thought the Gothenburg Principle was a good idea in regards to alcohol consumption.

[Hibernia&Alba]

Is that not the idea behind a Credit Union?
I always thought the Gothenburg Principle was a good idea in regards to alcohol consumption.

Wider remit than a credit union. Democratic control, just as we vote in elections. Every adult to participate, then one vote per person to decide how all monies (including created money via the state and not private corporations) should be used. That which governs our lives should be controlled by us. Economic and industrial democracy are every bit as important as political democracy.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Wider remit than a credit union. Democratic control, just as we vote in elections. Every adult to participate, then one vote per person to decide how all monies (including created money via the state and not private corporations) should be used. That which governs our lives should be controlled by us. Economic and industrial democracy are every bit as important as political democracy.

Did that Dave Fishwick guy from Burnley (tv doc) not try and do something similar?

I think its an interesting idea. I dont agree necessarily about democracy in industry etc, because thats getting into tye realms of abolishing the private and hard core socialism, which doesnt work.

But a mutual society along the lines you say? Cant be that hard to organise in an inrernet world surely?

What about the co-operative bank, is that not similar?

Also, you have to be careful about too much democracy - people can, and do, make the wrong decisions at times. Im not sure id want my money being managed by a democrati committee.

[RyeSloan]

Wider remit than a credit union. Democratic control, just as we vote in elections. Every adult to participate, then one vote per person to decide how all monies (including created money via the state and not private corporations) should be used. That which governs our lives should be controlled by us. Economic and industrial democracy are every bit as important as political democracy.

You want a vote to decide how ALL money should be used?

I admire your passion for a change of system but how on earth does that work?

And are you proposing to have a vote on how the money is used after it has been created and passed to the first recipient...a vote on every subsequent transaction?

[Hibernia&Alba]

You want a vote to decide how ALL money should be used?

I admire your passion for a change of system but how on earth does that work?

And are you proposing to have a vote on how the money is used after it has been created and passed to the first recipient...a vote on every subsequent transaction?

No, individuals would still spend their own income as they see fit, of course. At the moment 97% of 'money' in the system is in fact debt created by private corporations i.e. banks, which create money for their own profit maximisation. They are totally unaccountable to the people and direct the money they created into projects that serve their needs best - that's why we get housing bubbles and the like - the banks make a killing from rentierism.

Instead of this, all banks are publicly owned and accountable to their local community, who decide what money creation should be used for. Should money creation be used to further push up house prices, or should it build a new school or put into renewable energy for every home? If we are to have a money system - a system which governs the lives of every person in society and is a requirement to keep a roof over one's head and put food in one's stomach - then the people of the society should democratically decide what that money is put to use for.

It's a simple concept actually: political democracy is futile without industrial and financial democracy. That idea gave us the trade unions. Why should private corporations be allowed to create 97% of money in the economy, with only their shareholders to think about? It's outrageous.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

No, individuals would still spend their own income as they see fit, of course. At the moment 97% of 'money' in the system is in fact debt created by private corporations i.e. banks, which create money for their own profit maximisation. They are totally unaccountable to the people and direct the money they created into projects that serve their needs best - that's why we get housing bubbles and the like - the banks make a killing from rentierism.

Instead of this, all banks are publicly owned and accountable to their local community, who decide what money creation should be used for. Should money creation be used to further push up house prices, or should it build a new school or put into renewable energy for every home? If we are to have a money system - a system which governs the lives of every person in society and is a requirement to keep a roof over one's head and put food in one's stomach - then the people of the society should democratically decide what that money is put to use for.

It's a simple concept actually: political democracy is futile without industrial and financial democracy. That idea gave us the trade unions. Why should private corporations be allowed to create 97% of money in the economy, with only their shareholders to think about? It's outrageous.

Is it not central banks that create money? And they are accountable to the government?

[Hibernia&Alba]

Is it not central banks that create money? And they are accountable to the government?

The entire thread is about the reality of money creation i.e. the vast, vast majority isn't created by governments at all. Why did I bother? :greengrin

I even posted videos which it explain it all.

[McSwanky]

Is it not central banks that create money? And they are accountable to the government?

That's exactly what the banks would like you to believe. It might be worth setting aside a wee bit of time to watch the videos posted earlier!

[Hibernia&Alba]

Public myths about private wealth and power; the need for industrial and community democracy. This guy gets it; he has potential.


https://youtu.be/34LEBcRtroo

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

The entire thread is about the reality of money creation i.e. the vast, vast majority isn't created by governments at all. Why did I bother? :greengrin

I even posted videos which it explain it all.

😂
Apols, i havent had a chance to watch the film

[Tornadoes70]

No, individuals would still spend their own income as they see fit, of course. At the moment 97% of 'money' in the system is in fact debt created by private corporations i.e. banks, which create money for their own profit maximisation. They are totally unaccountable to the people and direct the money they created into projects that serve their needs best - that's why we get housing bubbles and the like - the banks make a killing from rentierism.

Instead of this, all banks are publicly owned and accountable to their local community, who decide what money creation should be used for. Should money creation be used to further push up house prices, or should it build a new school or put into renewable energy for every home? If we are to have a money system - a system which governs the lives of every person in society and is a requirement to keep a roof over one's head and put food in one's stomach - then the people of the society should democratically decide what that money is put to use for.

It's a simple concept actually: political democracy is futile without industrial and financial democracy. That idea gave us the trade unions. Why should private corporations be allowed to create 97% of money in the economy, with only their shareholders to think about? It's outrageous.

Your system sounds very slow, cumbersome, absent of inward investors, financial experts, entrepreneurs and would very possibly become bankrupt within a short period of time. Communism alone has been shown not to work. Responsible capitalism best serves both the public and private sectors.

In order for public services to thrive they require immense amounts of money from a vast number of governmental revenue streams. Your system sounds remarkably poor and destined to lead all sectors into probably rapidly becoming destitute.

[Hibernia&Alba]

Your system sounds as if it would be very slow, cumbersome, absent of inward investors, money experts, entrepreneurs and possibly bankrupt within a short period of time. Communism alone has been shown not to work. Responsible capitalism best serves both the public sector and private sectors.

In order for public services to thrive they require immense amounts of money from a number of streams and your system sounds remarkably poor and destined to lead all sectors into quickly becoming destitute.

I'm not advocating communism in the statist sense; that was undemocratic and every bit as exploitative as nineteenth century capitalism. What I'm saying is very simple: we need a financial system which serves the people, not vice-versa. We have man made economic systems, meaning it's corrupt for any system not to serve all men and women via the vote. It's exactly the same argument we had under feudalism, then when there was a tiny franchise, then votes for men only, then all women over thirty, then all people above 18. It's the battle for participation and to be heard, so that democratic control in the workplace and in the economy is one day taken every bit as for granted as universal political suffrage. There are a number of methods to achieve that, but democracy must be at its core.

[Tornadoes70]

I'm not advocating communism in the statist sense; that was undemocratic and every bit as exploitative as nineteenth century capitalism. What I'm saying is very simple: we need a financial system which serves the people, not vice-versa. We have man made economic systems, meaning it's corrupt for any system not to serve all men and women via the vote. It's exactly the same argument we had under feudalism, then when there was a tiny franchise, then votes for men only, then all women over thirty, then all people above 18. It's the battle for participation and to be heard, so that democratic control in the workplace and in the economy is one day taken every bit as for granted as universal political suffrage. There are a number of methods to achieve that, but democracy must be at its core.

I understand fully what your'e saying and I think 'responsible' capitalism whereby balance and checks are required to keep in check unqualified greed or likewise unqualified over regulation from the state.

Balanced responsible capitalism best serves both public and private sectors in my opinion of course.

[Hibernia&Alba]

I understand fully what your'e saying and I think 'responsible' capitalism whereby balance and checks are required to keep in check unqualified greed or likewise unqualified over regulation from the state.

Balanced responsible capitalism best serves both public and private sectors in my opinion of course.

Is there such a thing? Sounds like an oxymoron. If you have a profit system, how are we responsible for the common good? We are then only interested in our own wellbeing, surely, and democracy suffers. However, market forces are now the received wisdom to the extent that anyone who questions them must be a nutter and an extremist; Rupert Murdoch and The Daily Mail say so. We are meant to believe that Bevan, Foot, Benn, Connolly, Hardie, Sands etc etc were all crazy and to be feared.

[Tornadoes70]

Is there such a thing? Sounds like an oxymoron. If you have a profit system, how are we responsible for the common good? We are then only interested in our own wellbeing, surely, and democracy suffers. However, market forces are now the received wisdom to the extent that anyone who questions them must be a nutter and an extremist; Rupert Murdoch and The Daily Mail say so. We are meant to believe that Bevan, Foot, Benn, Connolly, Hardie, Sands etc etc were all crazy and to be feared.

I would say of course we can ensure a balanced responsible capitalist system is in place one that ensures everyone pays into the system fairly, one that rewards hard work and achievers, one that delivers for our public services and cares for the poor and most vulnerable in society.

[RyeSloan]

Is there such a thing? Sounds like an oxymoron. If you have a profit system, how are we responsible for the common good? We are then only interested in our own wellbeing, surely, and democracy suffers. However, market forces are now the received wisdom to the extent that anyone who questions them must be a nutter and an extremist; Rupert Murdoch and The Daily Mail say so. We are meant to believe that Bevan, Foot, Benn, Connolly, Hardie, Sands etc etc were all crazy and to be feared.

But who do you think creates market forces? The consumer exercises their ‘vote’ every time they buy something.

I’m not sure I’m getting how your system is scalable in any degree. Are you proposing a plebiscite every time a business wants to raise money?

And how sound is the judgment of those that vote? We’ve seen two votes recently where the minority have immediately claimed the majority were wrong, that their opinion was swayed through bias and fear. This might suggest that getting people to vote on something is not intrinsically linked to better, fairer decisions.

And ultimately would it not be the case that the voting on every time money is to be created would be seen as cumbersome and laborious? Seems to me that it’s easy to imagine that quite quickly leading to process where people would prefer to vote in a representative group to make the decisions on behalf of the wider masses.

As you can tell I’m not quite sure I’m getting the concept here [emoji23][emoji38]

[Hibernia&Alba]

But who do you think creates market forces? The consumer exercises their ‘vote’ every time they buy something.

I’m not sure I’m getting how your system is scalable in any degree. Are you proposing a plebiscite every time a business wants to raise money?

And how sound is the judgment of those that vote? We’ve seen two votes recently where the minority have immediately claimed the majority were wrong, that their opinion was swayed through bias and fear. This might suggest that getting people to vote on something is not intrinsically linked to better, fairer decisions.

And ultimately would it not be the case that the voting on every time money is to be created would be seen as cumbersome and laborious? Seems to me that it’s easy to imagine that quite quickly leading to process where people would prefer to vote in a representative group to make the decisions on behalf of the wider masses.

As you can tell I’m not quite sure I’m getting the concept here [emoji23][emoji38]

Consumerism equates to a vote?
That's market fundamentalism and a misrepresentation of democracy. I don't think consumerism and citizenship are the same things at all. What happens to those who haven't the money to cast a 'vote'?

None of us have the answers on our own; let's get the PhD economists and sociologists involved, along with everybody else in all walks of life, so that human need is raised above the creation of money supply by and for private banks. As I say, one day it will make as much sense as everybody having the political vote, which, once upon a time, was considered barmy and unworkable. Of course man made systems should work via the decisions taken by all of the population.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Consumerism equates to a vote?
That's market fundamentalism and a misrepresentation of democracy. I don't think consumerism and citizenship are the same things at all. What happens to those who haven't the money to cast a 'vote'?

None of us have the answers on our own; let's get the PhD economists and sociologists involved, along with everybody else in all walks of life, so that human need is raised above the creation of money supply by and for private banks. As I say, one day it will make as much sense as everybody having the political vote, which, once upon a time, was considered barmy and unworkable. Of course man made systems should work via the decisions taken by all of the population.

While i dont necessarily disagree with your premise, that there are things wrong with the current model. But i dont understand what you are advocating in its place?

A vote, a public vote but with sociologists, economists and phds (all unelected, and all who have their own biases) having a greater input into decisions?

[Slavers]

While i dont necessarily disagree with your premise, that there are things wrong with the current model. But i dont understand what you are advocating in its place?

A vote, a public vote but with sociologists, economists and phds (all unelected, and all who have their own biases) having a greater input into decisions?

It's all left wing ideology.

The thing what gets me there is nothing to stop people wor king hard earning millions and then giving it away to good causes.

However hard core lefties don't want to do that they want other people's money to spend.

[Hibernia&Alba]

It's all left wing ideology.

The thing what gets me there is nothing to stop people wor king hard earning millions and then giving it away to good causes.

However hard core lefties don't want to do that they want other people's money to spend.

Again, this is the Milton Friedman/Von Hayek view of the world that taxation is theft, akin to free markets being places where votes are cast. Neither is true: votes are cast by ballot: 'other people's money' is the wealth created by working people. The private banks are the one's preying upon that via their rentierism; supply and demand is a very blunt instrument to allocate resources; the real world is far more nuanced than that.

Having publicly owned and accountable money creation is the only fair way to do it. Why should private corporation be able to create money and determine where it's directed, for their own benefit? It's vital to every person in society.

[Hibernia&Alba]

While i dont necessarily disagree with your premise, that there are things wrong with the current model. But i dont understand what you are advocating in its place?

A vote, a public vote but with sociologists, economists and phds (all unelected, and all who have their own biases) having a greater input into decisions?

The starting point must be to remove the power of private banks to create money. There should be a public and democratic system in place to decide the amount of 'money' to be created and where it should be directed in local communities, underpinned by the state. The government could be doing much better things with the system than propping up private banks when they destroy themselves. I would advocate that as the basic principle, though I certainly don't claim to have all the answers, hence it would require the help of the PhD economists and the rest to hep construct the model. I wasn't meaning they would make the decisions.

I like some of the ideas put forward in the '97% Owned' documentary regarding public options and community driven banking systems. Thing is everyone who advocates such dramatic change is called an extremist, yet the system we currently we have is extremist in its fealty to what are actually criminal organisations in the damage they do via systemic rigging.

[Tornadoes70]

Again, this is the Milton Friedman/Von Hayek view of the world that taxation is theft, akin to free markets being places where votes are cast. Neither is true: votes are cast by ballot: 'other people's money' is the wealth created by working people. The private banks are the one's preying upon that via their rentierism; supply and demand is a very blunt instrument to allocate resources; the real world is far more nuanced than that.

Having publicly owned and accountable money creation is the only fair way to do it. Why should private corporation be able to create money and determine where it's directed, for their own benefit? It's vital to every person in society.

Borrowing, saving and lending among many other things should be largely outside of governmental departments. Banks free from governmental interference are by far best placed to decide individuals, businesses and others financial matters.

In saying I would support more stringent checks on banks from tougher ombudsman.

You're at it. Very few support your ultra communist garbage. No one wants a return to government hand outs for all.

[Hibernia&Alba]

Borrowing, saving and lending among many other things should be largely outside of governmental departments. Banks free from governmental interference are by far best placed to decide individuals, businesses and others financial matters.

In saying I would support more stringent checks on banks from tougher ombudsman.

You're at it. Very few support your ultra communist garbage. No one wants a return to government hand outs for all.

Except that isn't what is being proposed at all - again misrepresentation. It's about who should create and control the money supply in society: private banks for their own gain or a democratic mechanism. As I say universal suffrage was once considered crazy extremist talk, well industrial and financial democracy is equally important, if we're to control our own lives. Completely unaccountable bankers creating and directing 97% of the money supply, hence impacting the life of every person in society, is surely intolerable.

Ultimately, money is a man made commodity, not a force of nature. So who should have control over it? It all boils down to that simple idea.

[Tornadoes70]

Except that isn't what is being proposed at all - again misrepresentation. It's about who should create and control the money supply in society: private banks for their own gain or a democratic mechanism. As I say universal suffrage was once considered crazy extremist talk, well industrial and financial democracy is equally important, if we're to control our own lives. Completely unaccountable bankers creating and directing 97% of the money supply, hence impacting the life of every person in society, is surely intolerable.

It doesn't have to be that way though. What we need is more stringent checks and balances in place whereby preventing crashes.

What you're calling for is largely the abolition of independent financial authorities and for the dead hand of ultra communism to take its place.

Is it any wonder the only party that cosy's up with you is the snp who only uses the greens to get their budget passed.

You'll never get into real positions of power very thankfully or there'd be riots.

Mon Labour!!!

[Hibernia&Alba]

It doesn't have to be that way though. What we need is more stringent checks and balances in place whereby preventing crashes.

What you're calling for is largely the abolition of independent financial authorities and for the dead hand of ultra communism.

Is it any wonder the only party that cosy's up with you is the snp who only uses the greens to get their budget passed.

You'll never get into real positions of power very thankfully or there'd be riots.

Mon Labour!!!

Many in the Labour Party would agree I think. Perhaps you're on the Blairite wing :wink:

By the way, and as I'm sure you know, I'm not talking about more regulations on private banks; it's about whether they should be allowed to create and direct money supply in their own interests, from nothing at all. That's a more fundamental debate, and it isn't extremist or cloud cuckoo land at all. That's the old cry whenever ideas about less plutocracy and more democracy are raised.

[Tornadoes70]

Many in the Labour Party would agree I think. Perhaps you're on the Blairite wing :wink:

No, just against the dead hand of communism. I have sons and daughters and want them to have opportunity and freedoms. Not all socialists are communists.

As I've stated previously I'm of the opinion that both public and private sectors working in balance are best served to provide for public services.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

No, just against the dead hand of communism. I have sons and daughters and want them to have opportunity and freedoms. Not all socialists are communists.

As I've stated previously I'm of the opinion that both public and private sectors working in balance are best served to provide for public services.

As i was taught, by a tubthumping marxist, was that socialism and communism were indivisable, with communism the aim but socialism the means, to dictatorship of the proletariat, but i digress.

I watched the video, and i thought it was thought provoking, but equally it offered no nuance at all. So what if the entire premise of the video is wrong?

As ibe said before, im happy that there is a debate, and im equally happy that there is a problem to be addressed with the current system.

And while i agree that banks should and must be allowed ro fail (which many would see as an argument for less, not more government), im still unsure what is being proposed to replace it, and why economists and phds who work in universities are any more qualified than those who currently work in banking and government to create a better system than currently exists.

Is it perfect? Hell no, its far from perfect and if i was in charge, id have much tougher regulations in place.

But it is the system that has facilitated what has probably been the greatest rise is wealth, living standards, health and opportunity in the entire history of human existence. Every single person viewing this thread is benefiting via the commercial internet, and the consumer commodity that is a phone or a laptop. Would any of these things happened otherwise?

And on a theoretical level, why is creating wealth based on a system such as it is, any worse than a system doing the same thing, but controlled by different people?

I think its a fadcinsting discussion, the kind i love on this board, but i would say the case as made bt the op and tje original video is yet unproven.

[Hibernia&Alba]

No, just against the dead hand of communism. I have sons and daughters and want them to have opportunity and freedoms. Not all socialists are communists.

As I've stated previously I'm of the opinion that both public and private sectors working in balance are best served to provide for public services.

Unless you define what you mean by a communist, I can't say either way. I'm certainly not a totalitarian statist who supports Stalin, Mao and tyrannical regimes of any kind, if that's what you mean; nor do I want to take away the freedoms of your children; that's crazy talk. This whole debate is about whether we can make enormous private wealth creation more democratic and accountable, which is hard to reconcile with less freedom. These terms such as communist are thrown around as insults, again to scaremonger. Also bear mind that under pure communism there is no money system.

I reckon few people actually realise how the banks create money from nothing. Why should we allow this, particularly when the leave the rest of us carrying the can, when they destroy themselves? A system of publicly owned community banks, democratically run by their members, seems to me far more socially responsible and a better example of a free society.

As a socialist yourself, I would have thought you would be all for reform of unaccountable power.

[Pete]

When I look at communism and what it involves, I'm more inclined to look at the forces that act against it and why.

There seems to be a lot more positive human traits involved in that compared to the neoliberal quagmire we have as our only 'realistic' choice.

[Tornadoes70]

As i was taught, by a tubthumping marxist, was that socialism and communism were indivisable, with communism the aim but socialism the means, to dictatorship of the proletariat, but i digress.

I watched the video, and i thought it was thought provoking, but equally it offered no nuance at all. So what if the entire premise of the video is wrong?

As ibe said before, im happy that there is a debate, and im equally happy that there is a problem to be addressed with the current system.

And while i agree that banks should and must be allowed ro fail (which many would see as an argument for less, not more government), im still unsure what is being proposed to replace it, and why economists and phds who work in universities are any more qualified than those who currently work in banking and government to create a better system than currently exists.

Is it perfect? Hell no, its far from perfect and if i was in charge, id have much tougher regulations in place.

But it is the system that has facilitated what has probably been the greatest rise is wealth, living standards, health and opportunity in the entire history of human existence. Every single person viewing this thread is benefiting via the commercial internet, and the consumer commodity that is a phone or a laptop. Would any of these things happened otherwise?

And on a theoretical level, why is creating wealth based on a system such as it is, any worse than a system doing the same thing, but controlled by different people?

I think its a fadcinsting discussion, the kind i love on this board, but i would say the case as made bt the op and tje original video is yet unproven.

There's a substantive amount of sense in the post above.

The capitalist system we have is not perfect by any means, however, as you rightly refer to there are zero systems being proposed in place of that would work over the long term that does not involve folk who aren't employed by the state becoming beholden and dependent upon the state. All powerful state governments always become dictatorial. Its beyond any doubt that to counter act dictator statists there has to be a certain amount of checks and balances against the state and that means a private sector working in balance with the public sector within a 'responsible' capitalist system.

I advocate this middle ground. The problem we have is that the centrists of all parties who seek to make ordinary folks lives better are often driven out or silenced by either extremist nazi right wingers or the opposite extremist ultra communist statists who are either greedy uncaring privateers or greedy uncaring statists in absence of centrist decent christian values.

Responsible more stringent checks and balances middle ground capitalism with public and private sectors working within parameters whereby preventing unqualified greed from either is by far the fairest and best served to provide for the public services we all rely upon.

[Hibernia&Alba]

There's a substantive amount of sense in the post above.

The capitalist system we have is not perfect by any means, however, as you rightly refer to there are zero systems being proposed in place of that would work over the long term that does not involve folk who aren't employed by the state becoming beholden and dependent upon the state. All powerful state governments always become dictatorial. Its beyond any doubt that to counter act dictator statists there has to be a certain amount of checks and balances against the state and that means a private sector working in balance with the public sector within a 'responsible' capitalist system.

I advocate this middle ground. The problem we have is that the centrists of all parties who seek to make ordinary folks lives better are often driven out or silenced by either extremist nazi right wingers or the opposite extremist ultra communist statists who are either greedy uncaring privateers or greedy uncaring statists in absence of centrist decent christian values.

Responsible more stringent checks and balances middle ground capitalism with public and private sectors working within parameters whereby preventing unqualified greed from either is by far the fairest and best served to provide for the public services we all rely upon.

I strongly disagree. Numerous societies have and still do advocate alternatives to both capitalism and totalitarianism; the problem was/is they usually find themselves crushed by the forces of either one or both of those: The Paris Commune 1871, anarchist Spain 1936, are but two famous examples of very democratic and non-hierarchical societies which weren't allowed to survive, because working people having democratic control of their lives and economies was threatening to the powerful elsewhere. In Paris the forces of reaction came from the right; in Spain from both left and right: the totalitarian USSR wanted the anarchist experiment destroyed as much as Franco on the far right and the capitalist powers did. I would throw in the Israeli kibbutz as a form of alternative which has managed to survive.

Again, this isn't about a dichotomy between market forces and the old Eastern Bloc. There are other ideas which are based upon democracy, de-centralisation, popular control and cooperation.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

I strongly disagree. Numerous societies have and still do advocate alternatives to both capitalism and totalitarianism; the problem was/is they usually find themselves crushed by the forces of either one or both of those: The Paris Commune 1871, anarchist Spain 1936, are but two famous examples of very democratic and non-hierarchical societies which weren't allowed to survive, because working people having democratic control of their lives and economies was threatening to the powerful elsewhere. In Paris the forces of reaction came from the right; in Spain from both left and right: the totalitarian USSR wanted the anarchist experiment destroyed as much as Franco on the far right and the capitalist powers did. I would throw in the Israeli kibbutz as a form of alternative which has managed to survive.

Again, this isn't about a dichotomy between market forces and the old Eastern Bloc. There are other ideas which are based upon democracy, de-centralisation, popular control and cooperation.

The problem with advocating such radical change is that there has to be a major problem, and to most people there isnt.

Capitalism has worked spectacularly well, and is in many ways democratic as each and every person gets to choose (for the most part), which buisnesses thrive and which fail.

Thats not to say it can't be, or shouldnt be improved and made to work better, but thus far it has proved far more adaptable and enduring than any of the other systems that have been tried.

Bottom line, is that most people love it. Its what the academic and theoretical left have never been able to grasp, because they assume that everyone will fall into their way of thinking, and when they dont, they blame 'systems', or reactionaries, oe basically anything else that doesnt mean they have to confront the weaknesses of their own ideas.

[Pagan Hibernia]

The Paris Commune 1871, anarchist Spain 1936, are but two famous examples of very democratic and non-hierarchical societies which weren't allowed to survive, because working people having democratic control of their lives and economies was threatening to the powerful elsewhere. In Paris the forces of reaction came from the right; in Spain from both left and right: the totalitarian USSR wanted the anarchist experiment destroyed as much as Franco on the far right and the capitalist powers did. I would throw in the Israeli kibbutz as a form of alternative which has managed to survive.

Again, this isn't about a dichotomy between market forces and the old Eastern Bloc. There are other ideas which are based upon democracy, de-centralisation, popular control and cooperation.

Anarchist Spain was indeed a fascinating experiment, and hugely successful albeit only for the very brief period that it lasted before it was crushed by the stalinists and the pressures of the war effort.

What lessons it has for today’s de-industrialized world though? Hard to say

[Slavers]

The problem with advocating such radical change is that there has to be a major problem, and to most people there isnt.

Capitalism has worked spectacularly well, and is in many ways democratic as each and every person gets to choose (for the most part), which buisnesses thrive and which fail.

Thats not to say it can't be, or shouldnt be improved and made to work better, but thus far it has proved far more adaptable and enduring than any of the other systems that have been tried.

Bottom line, is that most people love it. Its what the academic and theoretical left have never been able to grasp, because they assume that everyone will fall into their way of thinking, and when they dont, they blame 'systems', or reactionaries, oe basically anything else that doesnt mean they have to confront the weaknesses of their own ideas.

Spot on, who in their right mind wants to live in a socialist society where Doctors gets paid the same as toilet cleaners?

A lot of left wing ideology is I think routed in mental illness as they think everyone is equal etc everyone is not equal and the world is not fair. Yes we should be kind to those less fortunate but not change A whole system to have its main priority is empathy to others. People will take advantage of that system just as they have with the capitalist system.

Ultimately history has show that socialism does not work. There are no successful examples of it. Some social welfare programs could be deemed a success like the NHS but even that can be horrendous with huge corruption and evil working within it.

Let people be free of the government!!! Let us speak, think and earn as much money as we want too.

This big huge government is rife with abuse and corruprion. At least with private enterprise you can hold them to account and close them down. Big government just covers things up closes ranks and silences people.

[Pete]

‘Ultimate history has shown that socialism doesn’t work’. I’d like to know of some examples where the conditions for ‘socialism’ have been met and been allowed to develop without negative external influences. It could be argued that ‘socialism’ is the earliest form of society and without it we wouldn’t even be here as a species. Working together for a common good was necessary among early humans as we had so many natural predators.
It’s become so twisted over time that we now see the original concept (money) control every aspect of our lives and ruthlessness, competition and selfishness is the norm. Throw in a little bit of welfare and a few facts about people being less poor than they were a few decades ago and it will keep them sweet.
I’d challenge the fact that everyone, or even most people love capitalism. Who are you talking about? Even if you can prove that the poorest on our planet like it then it’s probsbly because they have been swayed by the relentless onslaught (propagated by those who have the most) against any other way of ordering society.

Linking left wing ideology with mental illness is a new low as far as I’m concerned but I’m not surprised considering the way the world has gone in the last thirty odd years.

[Pagan Hibernia]

A lot of left wing ideology is I think routed in mental illness

.

Please... generals pinochet and videla came out with this exact same crap in the 70s.

[Hibernia&Alba]

Spot on, who in their right mind wants to live in a socialist society where Doctors gets paid the same as toilet cleaners?

A lot of left wing ideology is I think routed in mental illness as they think everyone is equal etc everyone is not equal and the world is not fair. Yes we should be kind to those less fortunate but not change A whole system to have its main priority is empathy to others. People will take advantage of that system just as they have with the capitalist system.

Ultimately history has show that socialism does not work. There are no successful examples of it. Some social welfare programs could be deemed a success like the NHS but even that can be horrendous with huge corruption and evil working within it.

Let people be free of the government!!! Let us speak, think and earn as much money as we want too.

This big huge government is rife with abuse and corruprion. At least with private enterprise you can hold them to account and close them down. Big government just covers things up closes ranks and silences people.

But who is advocating such a thing? Terrible analysis.

[Ozyhibby]

Capitalism is the single greatest wealth creation system there is. Nothing else comes close. A free market system allows people to direct resources exactly to the things they value most.
It’s only when we stray from free markets that things go wrong (planning system, saving the banks etc).
There is no other system out there that even comes close to capitalism when it comes to bringing people out of poverty. It’s so successful that we now have to measure poverty relatively because there is so little absolute poverty.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Pete]

Terrible analysis.

It's not the only one.

[Hibernia&Alba]

Capitalism is the single greatest wealth creation system there is. Nothing else comes close. A free market system allows people to direct resources exactly to the things they value most.
It’s only when we stray from free markets that things go wrong (planning system, saving the banks etc).
There is no other system out there that even comes close to capitalism when it comes to bringing people out of poverty. It’s so successful that we now have to measure poverty relatively because there is so little absolute poverty.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yet there is no free market in the developed countries, only mixed economies, which were only able to develop as a consequence of a massive public role in all kinds of sectors, including in science in technology.

The computer, the microchip, the space rocket, satellite navigation, and countless other things were funded and developed in the public sector. That's before you even mention public education, health care, housing, roads etc. The fundamentals have required public provision.

By the way, when you say there is so little absolute poverty, are you aware that, according to the UN, there are 1.5 million people in the UK classified as destitute. Not merely poor or in relative poverty, but completely destitute.

[Ozyhibby]

Yet there is no free market in the developed countries, only mixed economies, which were only able to develop as a consequence of a massive public role in all kinds of sectors, including in science in technology.

The computer, the microchip, the space rocket, satellite navigation, and countless other things were funded and developed in the public sector. That's before you even mention public education, health care, housing, roads etc. The fundamentals have required public provision.

By the way, when you say there is so little absolute poverty, are you aware that, according to the UN, there are 1.5 million people in the UK classified as destitute. Not merely poor or in relative poverty, but completely destitute.

I didn’t say there was no place for the public sector. It has a very important role. However, it works best when it’s well funded within a capitalist system.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RyeSloan]

Yet there is no free market in the developed countries, only mixed economies, which were only able to develop as a consequence of a massive public role in all kinds of sectors, including in science in technology.

The computer, the microchip, the space rocket, satellite navigation, and countless other things were funded and developed in the public sector. That's before you even mention public education, health care, housing, roads etc. The fundamentals have required public provision.

By the way, when you say there is so little absolute poverty, are you aware that, according to the UN, there are 1.5 million people in the UK classified as destitute. Not merely poor or in relative poverty, but completely destitute.

Yet poverty measures for the UK have dropped dramatically over the years...of course there is still those that have too little but the facts really do speak for themselves:

https://fullfact.org/economy/poverty-uk-guide-facts-and-figures/

[Hibernia&Alba]

Yet poverty measures for the UK have dropped dramatically over the years...of course there is still those that have too little but the facts really do speak for themselves:

https://fullfact.org/economy/poverty-uk-guide-facts-and-figures/

Of course it has dropped. After World War Two, millions lived in slums that were unfit for human habitation, hence the slum clearances. The NHS provided health care for all; free university education was introduced, along with the welfare state. But remember it was public provision which remedied many of the social ills. It wasn't capitalism which lifted millions out of poverty post 1945, much of it was a consequence of a far greater role played by the state. The 1945-51 Labour government was the most left wing (and in my opinion the greatest) government Britain has ever had.

It's an interesting topic, but not what the thread is about, however.

[bigwheel]

I didn’t say there was no place for the public sector. It has a very important role. However, it works best when it’s well funded within a capitalist system.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I'd agree with the spirit of this - unfortunately in our capitalist system the "well funded" bit is getting ignored...

[Ozyhibby]

I'd agree with the spirit of this - unfortunately in our capitalist system the "well funded" bit is getting ignored...

Compared to socialist systems it is lavishly funded.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bigwheel]

Compared to socialist systems it is lavishly funded.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

that feels like a sweeping generalisation that doesn't really make comparative sense. The UK public spending is pretty middle of the road in comparison to most other economies in OECD..below countries such as Finland, Norway, Greece, Sweden etc. who all have had socialist governments during recent periods...Equally in Health care (for example) the average level of health service in UK is lower than average compared to other OECD countries in recent surveys..

Equally, it can be lavishly funded (although stats suggest that is not true) and still not working..which I'd say was a fair comment of the UK Public Sector

[Ozyhibby]

All 4 of those countries are capitalist. They may have high taxes but they are very much free market economies.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

Yet poverty measures for the UK have dropped dramatically over the years...of course there is still those that have too little but the facts really do speak for themselves:

https://fullfact.org/economy/poverty-uk-guide-facts-and-figures/

As a consequence of government injecting money by proxy through child tax credits and pension credits.

One of the greatest tricks Gordon Brown carried out was lifting millions of children and pensioners out of poverty without being accused of ‘tax and spend’.

Just a shame the banks ****ed it up and needed bailing out, so that ATMs and direct debits would continue working and anarchy wouldn’t ensue.

Capitalism is effective at wealth creation but the con is that it can and does fail. Massively in 1929 and in 2008. And when it does fail, it risks bringing everything down with it unless government steps in, which only government can do.

Essentially we have privatised profit but nationalised risk. There’s no incentive for ‘wealth creators’ to be responsible when they can speculate to accumulate and when it all goes to pot, the state will fix it.

It is a rigged game.

[RyeSloan]

As a consequence of government injecting money by proxy through child tax credits and pension credits.

One of the greatest tricks Gordon Brown carried out was lifting millions of children and pensioners out of poverty without being accused of ‘tax and spend’.

Just a shame the banks ****ed it up and needed bailing out, so that ATMs and direct debits would continue working and anarchy wouldn’t ensue.

Capitalism is effective at wealth creation but the con is that it can and does fail. Massively in 1929 and in 2008. And when it does fail, it risks bringing everything down with it unless government steps in, which only government can do.

Essentially we have privatised profit but nationalised risk. There’s no incentive for ‘wealth creators’ to be responsible when they can speculate to accumulate and when it all goes to pot, the state will fix it.

It is a rigged game.

Just because it’s rigged doesn’t make the basic premise wrong.

Anyway it I interesting that you mention 1929. A crash that did indeed wipe out many many banks and one where the speculators paid the ultimate cost and of course was the root of the Glass Stegall act which was designed to prevent a repeat, an act that was repealed in 1999...

[Mibbes Aye]

Just because it’s rigged doesn’t make the basic premise wrong.

Anyway it I interesting that you mention 1929. A crash that did indeed wipe out many many banks and one where the speculators paid the ultimate cost and of course was the root of the Glass Stegall act which was designed to prevent a repeat, an act that was repealed in 1999...

And is that maybe why the price of freedom is eternal vigilance? :greengrin

It's hard to argue the basic premise is right though - a system that people can exploit in any way whatsoever and where they stand or fall by their decisions. Fair enough. But a system that allows that to happen in a way whereby people and corporations can insulate themselves from the fall by being too big to fail, meaning the state carries the can?

Public services have been shredded in the UK, with England a couple of years ahead of Scotland. As a consequence of the state carrying the can and paying the price for decisions and risks taken by people who only sought to profit themselves or their shareholders.

The people who are most hurt are those who most depend on public services and those who are the weakest - the elderly, the disabled, those with chronic health conditions, whether physical or mental.

They suffer and die because a rigged system is the best we can come up with?

[RyeSloan]

And is that maybe why the price of freedom is eternal vigilance? :greengrin

It's hard to argue the basic premise is right though - a system that people can exploit in any way whatsoever and where they stand or fall by their decisions. Fair enough. But a system that allows that to happen in a way whereby people and corporations can insulate themselves from the fall by being too big to fail, meaning the state carries the can?

Public services have been shredded in the UK, with England a couple of years ahead of Scotland. As a consequence of the state carrying the can and paying the price for decisions and risks taken by people who only sought to profit themselves or their shareholders.

The people who are most hurt are those who most depend on public services and those who are the weakest - the elderly, the disabled, those with chronic health conditions, whether physical or mental.

They suffer and die because a rigged system is the best we can come up with?

Oh don’t disagree with any of that.

The system doesn’t have to be rigged though and the banks didn’t need to be saved in the way they were...I mean why did the UK government pay anything for RBS for example?

Capitalism gets a serious bad name but I reckon it’s benefits are hugely misunderstood and misrepresented. Frequently it’s the *******isation of the system that is to blame for its biggest ills. Sadly that distortion seems to be quite happily engaged in by corporations, governments and central banks in ever more ingenious ways.

[Mibbes Aye]

Oh don’t disagree with any of that.

The system doesn’t have to be rigged though and the banks didn’t need to be saved in the way they were...I mean why did the UK government pay anything for RBS for example?

Capitalism gets a serious bad name but I reckon it’s benefits are hugely misunderstood and misrepresented. Frequently it’s the *******isation of the system that is to blame for its biggest ills. Sadly that distortion seems to be quite happily engaged in by corporations, governments and central banks in ever more ingenious ways.

Yes, I think I agree with you. It's rarely in its purest form and while I don't agree with it as a philosophy or system, I accept that it usually is *******ised and therefore not really what it is meant to be. From a theoretical or intellectual point of view I can respect it as a belief system or theory in its own right.

As to your first paragraph, I think we saw the worst of both worlds. One where the profit was privatised but systems and processes lacked the function to remedy that without kowtowing to that dysfunctional way of managing the economy. Pure capitalism or pure command economics may have been the better resolution though it's fascinating (and a bit scary) to speculate what either would have resulted in.

[Ozyhibby]

https://capx.co/the-real-problem-in-venezuela-isnt-socialism/



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[WhileTheChief..]

If capitalism is bad then socialism is pure unadulterated evil.

The basic premise of something must be wrong or rigged cause you’ve got more than me just doesn’t add up.

[Pete]

If capitalism is bad then socialism is pure unadulterated evil.

The basic premise of something must be wrong or rigged cause you’ve got more than me just doesn’t add up.

That’s not really what socialism is all about.

Calling it evil is nonsensical.

[Mibbes Aye]

That’s not really what socialism is all about.

Calling it evil is nonsensical.

:agree:

Most systems don’t last their meeting with people :greengrin

[Hibernia&Alba]

If capitalism is bad then socialism is pure unadulterated evil.

The basic premise of something must be wrong or rigged cause you’ve got more than me just doesn’t add up.

It isn't a matter of having more than anybody. To me it's a principle of what life is for. I reject the idea that human existence is based upon financial exchange. Money is a man made system (to get back to the point of the thread) and to be human is not a matter of acquiring as many resources at possible for oneself. To regard human interaction as a financial exchange is to miss the point entirely.

[Tornadoes70]

It isn't a matter of having more than anybody. To me it's a principle of what life is for. I reject the idea that human existence is based upon financial exchange. Money is a man made system (to get back to the point of the thread) and to be human is not a matter of acquiring as many resources at possible for oneself. To regard human interaction as a financial exchange is to miss the point entirely.

Of course money is a man made system.

Money is simply a necessity that exists as its been proven to work as the optimum system in which for folk to buy and sell essential and not so essential items with.

What's your opposing system?

[Tornadoes70]

It isn't a matter of having more than anybody. To me it's a principle of what life is for. I reject the idea that human existence is based upon financial exchange. Money is a man made system (to get back to the point of the thread) and to be human is not a matter of acquiring as many resources at possible for oneself. To regard human interaction as a financial exchange is to miss the point entirely.

You must have an alternative system in mind mate?

[Tornadoes70]

It isn't a matter of having more than anybody. To me it's a principle of what life is for. I reject the idea that human existence is based upon financial exchange. Money is a man made system (to get back to the point of the thread) and to be human is not a matter of acquiring as many resources at possible for oneself. To regard human interaction as a financial exchange is to miss the point entirely.

If you've no substitute system to put to folk how can they take you seriously?

Enlighten us please.

Mon the Cabbage!!!

[Hibernia&Alba]

You must have an alternative system in mind mate?

I have already said many times that, if we are to have a money system, money creation must be taken out of the hands of private corporations and be publicly decided. This means no private banks, but, rather, publicly owned banks democratically accountable to the local community. The aim must be money creation for public good, not private gain. Should money creation be decided by private companies for their own benefit e.g. housing bubbles, or should it be created for public enterprises? To me this is a rhetorical question, such is the obviousness of the answer. Thus it becomes a question of how we should live, rather than what we can have. To me this is freedom; so called 'free markets' misuse the word free, in order to enable the unscrupulous enslave the rest. Freedom for the minority to dictate the lives of all is not freedom, just as freedom for the wolves to eat the sheep is not freedom for all i.e. each should be as free as possible, but none is free to enslave others.

There is a saying that people find it easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism, yet we must remember that capitalism as we know it is a product of the past couple of centuries only and there are other ways of thinking. What's more, capitalism requires constant growth to maintain itself, which simply isn't possible, given finite natural resources. Thus at some very near point we will require alternatives, if human existence is to continue.

[Tornadoes70]

I have already said many times that, if we are to have a money system, money creation must be taken out of the hands of private corporations and be publicly decided. This means no private banks, but, rather, publicly owned banks democratically accountable to the local community. The aim must be money creation for public good, not private gain. Should money creation be decided by private companies for their own benefit e.g. housing bubbles, or should it be created for public enterprises? To me this is a rhetorical question, such is the obviousness of the answer. Thus it becomes a question of how we should live, rather than what we can have. To me this is freedom; so called 'free markets' misuse the word free, in order to enable the unscrupulous enslave the rest. Freedom for the minority to dictate the lives of all is not freedom, just as freedom for the wolves to eat the sheep is not freedom for all i.e. each should be as free as possible, but none is free to enslave others.

There is a saying that people find it easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism, yet we must remember that capitalism as we know it is a product of the past couple of centuries only and there are other ways of thinking. What's more, capitalism requires constant growth to maintain itself, which simply isn't possible, given finite natural resources. Thus at some very near point we will require alternatives, if human existence is to continue.

In other words you want the state or government to decide how money is created and spent?

Not an alternative to money as you've slyly been attempting to portray, just who controls it?

Not free markets but entirely state controlled?

Communism in all but name?

Don't kid folk its all been tried before.

[Hibernia&Alba]

In other words you want the state or government to decide how money is created and spent?

Not an alternative to money as you've slyly been attempting to portray, just who controls it?

Not free markets but entirely state controlled?

Communism in all but name?

Don't kid folk its all been tried before.

Not at all. Local communities via local public banks to vote democratically on money creation. This isn't the state capitalism of the USSR/Eastern Bloc but a fully decentralised system as an alternative to both that and capitalism. I have already said the models should be the Paris commune of 1871 or anarchist Spain of 1936, which, though hard to imagine, given our current neoliberal world, is a viable alternative. There are other options to what we have we now, which are much better, IMO, which needn't be statist by way of the 'communism' of the USSR.

You say 'communist in all but name', which I presume means the USSR model. But remember, true communism has no money system at all, and the USSR was neither communist nor socialist; thus we must be careful with terminology. Their industries ran in exactly the same way as the Tsarist industries, only the private capitalist was replaced by the public bureaucrat. The owner changed, the system of work did not.

I get the feeling you are completely missing the point and can only see the system we have now juxtaposed with the USSR model, neither of which is the aim.

[Tornadoes70]

Not at all. Local communities via local public banks to vote democratically on money creation. This isn't the state capitalism of the USSR/Eastern Bloc but a fully decentralised system as an alternative to both that and capitalism. I have already said the models should be the Paris commune of 1871 or anarchist Spain of 1936, which, though hard to imagine, given our current neoliberal world, is a viable alternative. There are other options to what we have we now, which are much better, IMO, which needn't be statist by way of the 'communism' of the USSR.

You say 'communist in all but name', which I presume means the USSR model. But remember, true communism has no money system at all, and the USSR was neither communist nor socialist; thus we must be careful with terminology. Their industries ran in exactly the same way as the Tsarist industries, only the private capitalist was replaced by the public bureaucrat. The owner changed, the system of work did not.

I get the feeling you are completely missing the point and can only see the system we have now juxtaposed with the USSR model, neither of which is the aim.

In simple words for ordinary folk to understand could you please set out your proposed alternative system in absence of criticising other systems but merely how wealth would be created and provided to ordinary folk in yours?

[Tornadoes70]

Not at all. Local communities via local public banks to vote democratically on money creation. This isn't the state capitalism of the USSR/Eastern Bloc but a fully decentralised system as an alternative to both that and capitalism. I have already said the models should be the Paris commune of 1871 or anarchist Spain of 1936, which, though hard to imagine, given our current neoliberal world, is a viable alternative. There are other options to what we have we now, which are much better, IMO, which needn't be statist by way of the 'communism' of the USSR.

You say 'communist in all but name', which I presume means the USSR model. But remember, true communism has no money system at all, and the USSR was neither communist nor socialist; thus we must be careful with terminology. Their industries ran in exactly the same way as the Tsarist industries, only the private capitalist was replaced by the public bureaucrat. The owner changed, the system of work did not.

I get the feeling you are completely missing the point and can only see the system we have now juxtaposed with the USSR model, neither of which is the aim.

How in practical terms for the majority of folk would your system work mate?

[Hibernia&Alba]

In simple words for ordinary folk to understand could you please set out your proposed alternative system in absence of criticising other systems but merely how wealth would be created and provided to ordinary folk in yours?

I already have set out the alternative as I see it: money creation would be taken out of the hands of private banks and instead democratically decided by local communities which would own and run the banks. Each community - be it a parliamentary constituency or some other set up - would decide when money should be created i.e. they would replace the board of the private banks. This democratisation would then ensure money or 'wealth' creation was for consensually agreed projects rather than shareholder profit. Instead of a bank creating a private loan, the community would vote upon how money creation be used and then that project would re-pay the loan via income. So in essence the means of creating money from nothing remains, but the ends are very different. This is entirely possible, given the system is an artifice. If we are to continue this game of alchemy, let us do so for the public good.

The alternative would be to drop the artifice i.e. abandon the money system, so cutting out the middle man and directly vote upon the allocation of all resources. This would be pure communism, and perhaps the democratisation of money creation could be a step towards it.

The 97% owned video I posted has some good ideas upon public banking, and I advise you to watch it.

[Tornadoes70]

I already have set out the alternative as I see it: money creation would be taken out of the hands of private banks and instead democratically decided by local communities which would own and run the banks. Each community - be it a parliamentary constituency or some other set up - would decide when money should be created i.e. they would replace the board of the private banks. This democratisation would then ensure money or 'wealth' creation was for consensually agreed projects rather than shareholder profit. Instead of a bank creating a private loan, the community would vote upon how money creation be used and then that project would re-pay the loan via income. So in essence the means of creating money from nothing remains, but the ends are very different. This is entirely possible, given the system is an artifice. If we are to continue this game of alchemy, let us do so for the public good.

The alternative would be to drop the artifice i.e. abandon the money system, so cutting out the middle man and directly vote upon the allocation of all resources. This would be pure communism, and perhaps the democratisation of money creation could be a step towards it.

This gets the two ronnies pure raspberry.

Doesn't sound even remotely thought through or possible.

No thank you. Think despite my own reservations I'll stick with the tried and trusted money system despite its flaws.

Dearie fck me.

Your'e a likeable guy but a thoroughly complete doughboy.

[Hibernia&Alba]

This gets the two ronnies pure raspberry.

Doesn't sound even remotely thought through or possible.

No thank you. Think despite my own reservations I'll stick with the tried and trusted money system despite its flaws.

Dearie fck me.

Your'e a likeable guy but a thoroughly complete doughboy.

So you'll take everything at face value and refuse to analyse the fundamentals.

And to what extent is the current system thought through, who thought it through, and whose interests does it serve? I see no justification for private banks creating money from nothing under public licence for their own benefit and being allowed to take a profit in the form of interest. This is usury. Use the public licence for public good. When the system is man made, let us decide as a whole what its aims should be. There is no justification for private banks, IMO.

[Tornadoes70]

This gets the two ronnies pure raspberry.

Doesn't sound even remotely thought through or possible.

No thank you. Think despite my own reservations I'll stick with the tried and trusted money system despite its flaws.

Dearie fck me.

Your'e a likeable guy but a thoroughly complete doughboy.

For example

You stated you would replace a potential normal individual current's bank loan with some community wealth something or other to be spent as the newly publicly owned whoever they were voted how it should be spent via some community project or other.

I asked for a reasoned pragmatic alternative to the current money you criticise yet was replied to with a seemingly crazed answer.

Again you're likeable guy, however, with no reasonable alternative to the system you put down.

[Tornadoes70]

So you'll take everything at face value and refuse to analyse the fundamentals.

And to what extent is the current system thought through, who thought it through, and whose interests does it serve? I see no justification for private banks creating money from nothing under public licence for their own benefit and being allowed to take a profit in the form of interest. This is usury. Use the public licence for public good. When the system is man made, let us decide as a whole what its aims should be. There is no justification for private banks, IMO.

But you have no realistic pragmatic alternative.

Please don't reply with the madness of undemocratic 'local community' brethrens to decide who gets what again please no?

[Hibernia&Alba]

For example

You stated you would replace a potential normal individual current's bank loan with some community wealth something or other to be spent as the newly publicly owned whoever they were voted how it should be spent via some community project or other.

I asked for a reasoned pragmatic alternative to the current money you criticise yet was replied to with a seemingly crazed answer.

Again you're likeable guy, however, with no reasonable alternative to the system you put down.

How many times do you need it explained? I would recommend the book I mentioned at the top of the thread, Where Does Money Come From? Also watch the aforementioned 97% Owned documentary. There are more civilised and efficient alternatives to the madness we currently endure. The fact you want it condensed into a single sentence (though God knows I've tried) doesn't alter the fact that change is practicable.

[Tornadoes70]

How many times do you need it explained? I would recommend the book I mentioned at the top of the thread, Where Does Money Come From? Also watch the aforementioned 97% Owned documentary. There are more civilised and efficient alternatives to the madness we currently endure. The fact you want it condensed into a single sentence (though God knows I've tried) doesn't alter the fact that change is practicable.

I couldn't give a **** what book or books you've read albeit education is good.

Have you any real experience in the financial world of banking, financial matters or fiduciary matters?

What is your background in financial economics?

[Hibernia&Alba]

I couldn't give a **** what book or books you've read albeit education is good.

Have you any real experience in the financial world of banking, financial matters or fiduciary matters?

What is your background in financial economics?

No, none at all. However, I would argue this issue isn't about working in banking. Nye Bevan had no experience in medicine, yet he created the NHS.

[WhileTheChief..]

The problem with these sorts of conversations is that whenever anyone tries to discuss the faults with socialism or communism the goalposts get moved.

In theory it’s perhaps a nice vision that could potentially apply in Utopia.

It has never worked, in any form, in any country effectively and ultimately leads to lots of the population suffering or dying.

Bizarrely folks don’t see that side of it though and instead keep banging the drum cause next time it will be different.

Expect it never is. So the goalposts get moved again.

Most recently it was Bernie Saunders’ turn trying to describe Denmark as a socialist country when even their Prine Minister has to point out to him that they have a free market economy.

The hard left is evil and what we’re seeing now in America with Black Lives Matter etc is hugely dangerous.

Capitalism may not be perfect but it’s lifted more people out of poverty and starvation than socialism could ever hope to.

[Ozyhibby]

I already have set out the alternative as I see it: money creation would be taken out of the hands of private banks and instead democratically decided by local communities which would own and run the banks. Each community - be it a parliamentary constituency or some other set up - would decide when money should be created i.e. they would replace the board of the private banks. This democratisation would then ensure money or 'wealth' creation was for consensually agreed projects rather than shareholder profit. Instead of a bank creating a private loan, the community would vote upon how money creation be used and then that project would re-pay the loan via income. So in essence the means of creating money from nothing remains, but the ends are very different. This is entirely possible, given the system is an artifice. If we are to continue this game of alchemy, let us do so for the public good.

The alternative would be to drop the artifice i.e. abandon the money system, so cutting out the middle man and directly vote upon the allocation of all resources. This would be pure communism, and perhaps the democratisation of money creation could be a step towards it.

The 97% owned video I posted has some good ideas upon public banking, and I advise you to watch it.

How would you get community consensus to fund Jeff bezos when he was starting up Amazon?
Most people thought it wouldn’t work. And how would you get a democratically elected board to fund something that would put a lot of their electorate out of work? And yet Amazon has gone on to become one of the worlds biggest companies who get products to people cheaper than anyone else. They make us all richer.

Socialism has never worked and relies on forcing people to the will of a small elite.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[matty_f]

I couldn't give a **** what book or books you've read albeit education is good.

Have you any real experience in the financial world of banking, financial matters or fiduciary matters?

What is your background in financial economics?

Could you wind it in a bit please? You've insulted sometime in this thread and this post is over the top as well.

[Rocky]

How many times do you need it explained? I would recommend the book I mentioned at the top of the thread, Where Does Money Come From? Also watch the aforementioned 97% Owned documentary. There are more civilised and efficient alternatives to the madness we currently endure. The fact you want it condensed into a single sentence (though God knows I've tried) doesn't alter the fact that change is practicable.

I feel like there's some substance in what you're saying but the way you're explaining it isn't really getting it across to me in a way that resonates. I will try to watch the video you mention.

Couple of questions if I may:

- is your primary concern this 'leveraged balance sheet' business (not sure if that's the right phrase) that banks do? I must admit I've followed chat about capital ratios etc in the past but never really made the connection that it means they can basically create money. It does feel odd to me that control of that should sit in the private sector. Although I suppose it is controlled by central government to an extent as they specify the minimum capital ratios?
- I don't really understand how money creation can sit locally - doesn't that run the risk of inflation getting out of control? Or would limits be enforced by central government?

[Tornadoes70]

Could you wind it in a bit please? You've insulted sometime in this thread and this post is over the top as well.

Yes, no problem at all. I accept the post was a tad over the top and apologies to both Hibernian&Alba and Admin.

[matty_f]

Yes, no problem at all. I accept the post was a tad over the top and apologies to both Hibernian&Alba and Admin.

:aok: much appreciated.

[Ozyhibby]

Latest attempt at socialism.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190123/aa0196d893121c420f1ff40a3b5d56e0.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Fife-Hibee]

Isn't it great that we're given the choice between 2 economic systems. One that kills an economy off quickly and the other that does it more slowly?

[Ozyhibby]

We could soon be living the Venezuela experience ourselves.

https://reaction.life/ten-times-corbynistas-praised-chavez-maduros-venezuela/




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190124/3ce72b38ff0d229d5b82cad7c6fb62e8.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[McSwanky]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190124/3ce72b38ff0d229d5b82cad7c6fb62e8.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Your stats above may or may not be right, but I'm not sure you want to be associating yourself with Turning Point USA! (Or maybe you do?) I hardly think they're going to give a balanced view!

[Ozyhibby]

Your stats above may or may not be right, but I'm not sure you want to be associating yourself with Turning Point USA! (Or maybe you do?) I hardly think they're going to give a balanced view!

Never heard of them but unless they are centre/right or centre/left then I most certainly don’t. I have no time for any kind of extremism.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Pete]

Never heard of them but unless they are centre/right or centre/left then I most certainly don’t. I have no time for any kind of extremism.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


In a global context, you’ll probably find that the Labour Party in their current guise are cente-left.

Carry on though. 😁

[Ozyhibby]

In a global context, you’ll probably find that the Labour Party in their current guise are cente-left.

Carry on though. [emoji16]

There is nothing centre about Corbyn and McDonnell. They dream about following the Venezuela model here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RyeSloan]

There is nothing centre about Corbyn and McDonnell. They dream about following the Venezuela model here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Oh and don’t forget our auld pal Dianne...a long term admirer and supporter of the Venezuelan regime.

[Mibbes Aye]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190124/3ce72b38ff0d229d5b82cad7c6fb62e8.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You might find this interesting reading. It's by an associate professor at NYU and makes the case that Venezuela's woes are neither directly as a cause of pursuing socialist policies, nor as the result of instability in oil prices (these are the two pretty dogmatic cases that tend to be put forward).

Rather he argues that something far more complex is going on, though it does feature significant elements of the the two theories mentioned above, as well as other causal factors.

https://nacla.org/news/2017/04/28/explaining-venezuelan-crisis

[Ozyhibby]

You might find this interesting reading. It's by an associate professor at NYU and makes the case that Venezuela's woes are neither directly as a cause of pursuing socialist policies, nor as the result of instability in oil prices (these are the two pretty dogmatic cases that tend to be put forward).

Rather he argues that something far more complex is going on, though it does feature significant elements of the the two theories mentioned above, as well as other causal factors.

https://nacla.org/news/2017/04/28/explaining-venezuelan-crisis

The petro currency problem has always been with Venezuela (and any other small country with large oil reserves) but previous crisis have never been this bad. The new factor is Chavez’s socialism. As with all socialism it starts of with great intentions and usually ends in gulags and disappearances. By the end, democracy has to be subverted to keep them in power.
The solution to the petro currency issue can be found in Norway and their sovereign wealth fund. It does not invest any money in Norway so that it does not cause massive inflation in the Norwegian currency. It means that Norway can still develop other industries and remain competitive.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

The petro currency problem has always been with Venezuela (and any other small country with large oil reserves) but previous crisis have never been this bad. The new factor is Chavez’s socialism. As with all socialism it starts of with great intentions and usually ends in gulags and disappearances. By the end, democracy has to be subverted to keep them in power.
The solution to the petro currency issue can be found in Norway and their sovereign wealth fund. It does not invest any money in Norway so that it does not cause massive inflation in the Norwegian currency. It means that Norway can still develop other industries and remain competitive.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think the point the author was making was that there was massive investment in currency controls to stabilise the economy, much like what the UK did during the 1960s and 1970s. This era in politics is commonly described as the 'post-war consensus' because far from being socialist, it reflected broad agreement between a left-centrist Labour and a moderate-right Conservatism.

I think the author also points out that much of Chavez's spending didn't go into creating nationalised infrastructure but into imports, leaving a lot of infrastructure in private hands.

It's not full-blown socialism by any stretch and I find it hard to disagree with him that it isn't as simple as "oil=bad" or "socialist intent=bad".

Not least of all, I think it is clear that Venezuela suffers from astonishingly bad institutional governance. That can occur in both capitalist and 'command and control' economies.

[Ozyhibby]

I think the point the author was making was that there was massive investment in currency controls to stabilise the economy, much like what the UK did during the 1960s and 1970s. This era in politics is commonly described as the 'post-war consensus' because far from being socialist, it reflected broad agreement between a left-centrist Labour and a moderate-right Conservatism.

I think the author also points out that much of Chavez's spending didn't go into creating nationalised infrastructure but into imports, leaving a lot of infrastructure in private hands.

It's not full-blown socialism by any stretch and I find it hard to disagree with him that it isn't as simple as "oil=bad" or "socialist intent=bad".

Not least of all, I think it is clear that Venezuela suffers from astonishingly bad institutional governance. That can occur in both capitalist and 'command and control' economies.

Whenever socialism collapses as it always does, it always turns out to have been the wrong type of socialism and next time it will be done differently.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190124/5258ac9f6dc331c9af6345aebcaa5b0e.jpg
Capitalism still remains the least bad option. It can always be improved obviously but it is the only system that can sustain democracy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Fife-Hibee]

Socialist policies integrated into a capitalist economic framework seems to work best. If it wasn't for socialism, we wouldn't have things like social security systems, a national health service or even proper public infrastructure. The concept of taxation was born from socialism.

The problem with having strictly free market capitalism (which the US gets ever closer towards) or an economy strictly controlled by the state, is that greed ultimately wins over those who are prepared to pull and share resources.

[Hibernia&Alba]

Whenever socialism collapses as it always does, it always turns out to have been the wrong type of socialism and next time it will be done differently.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190124/5258ac9f6dc331c9af6345aebcaa5b0e.jpg
Capitalism still remains the least bad option. It can always be improved obviously but it is the only system that can sustain democracy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Really, and what about when capitalism completely collapses, as in 1929 and 2008, and demands saving i.e. socialise the losses and privatise the profit? You also equate capitalism with democracy, yet what is the democratic control of the banks for example, and what if the population democratically votes for a different system? Should they have corporate profit maximisation forced upon them against their wishes? How is that democratic? See countless examples of America overthrowing democratically elected left wing governments, for example.

Let's not put the cart before the horse here. At present we have private banks creating 97 per cent of all 'money' from nothing for the good of their shareholders. Question is, if money is essential to survival in our society (as is undoubtedly the case) how should it be created and distributed?

1, Economies and money systems are man-made constructs: no other animal species has it. Thus the question is what is it for and what do we want to achieve?

2, The creation of money supply by private banks is entirely undemocratic. What if, for example, the majority of the population wants the money currently created from nothing for mortgages, and thus another housing bubble, to be instead used for hospitals, schools, social housing. What is the mechanism for bringing this about? I would argue democratic control via public banking.

3, Public creation of the money supply means the things we consider most important are front loaded i.e. the 'money' is created specifically for the common good rather than private profit. So, instead of taxation being used at the back end of money creation, as is currently the case, the money is electronically 'created' to fully fund that which is socially beneficial. Instead of private banks creating money via loans which then trickles through the economy via private hands and is then taxed, the money is instead democratically 'created' for projects which have been voted upon and it all goes to those projects. Why should public spending be last in line, dependent upon how much a government is prepared to tax a money supply created by private banks? This system is entirely in reverse, in my opinion.

4, I am convinced the money/banking system is an artificially created concept which merely pushes electronically created numbers from one place to another, yet we are told people must be homeless, hungry, jobless etc. It's a nonsense designed to benefit the few at the toil and expense of the many. We need a democratically run society which enables all to maximise their potential, not a contrivance which is measured against an artificial construct of the money system.

Does this sound radical? Yes it does, but radical doesn't mean crazy, for I truly believe that the current global system which has millions starving whilst a tiny few possess unimaginable printed 'wealth' is radically at odds with what human life should be about. Accident of birth should have no bearing upon whether one dies in infancy or grand old age, yet we currently accept this as somehow just.

It is easier for most of us to envision the end of the world than the end of capitalism, yet our modern capitalist age is a blip in human history, and over the grand sweep of human existence, however long it lasts, it will be but one chapter.

[Tornadoes70]

Really, and what about when capitalism completely collapses, as in 1929 and 2008, and demands saving i.e. socialise the losses and privatise the profit? You also equate capitalism with democracy, yet what is the democratic control of the banks for example, and what if the population democratically votes for a different system? Should they have corporate profit maximisation forced upon them against their wishes? How is that democratic? See countless examples of America overthrowing democratically elected left wing governments, for example.

Let's not put the cart before the horse here. At present we have private banks creating 97 per cent of all 'money' from nothing for the good of their shareholders. Question is, if money is essential to survival in our society (as is undoubtedly the case) how should it be created and distributed?

1, Economies and money systems are man-made constructs: no other animal species has it. Thus the question is what is it for and what do we want to achieve?

2, The creation of money supply by private banks is entirely undemocratic. What if, for example, the majority of the population wants the money currently created from nothing for mortgages, and thus another housing bubble, to be instead used for hospitals, schools, social housing. What is the mechanism for bringing this about? I would argue democratic control via public banking.

3, Public creation of the money supply means the things we consider most important are front loaded i.e. the 'money' is created specifically for the common good rather than private profit. So, instead of taxation being used at the back end of money creation, as is currently the case, the money is electronically 'created' to fully fund that which is socially beneficial. Instead of private banks creating money via loans which then trickles through the economy via private hands and is then taxed, the money is instead democratically 'created' for projects which have been voted upon and it all goes to those projects. Why should public spending be last in line, dependent upon how much a government is prepared to tax a money supply created by private banks? This system is entirely in reverse, in my opinion.

4, I am convinced the money/banking system is an artificially created concept which merely pushes electronically created numbers from one place to another, yet we are told people must be homeless, hungry, jobless etc. It's a nonsense designed to benefit the few at the toil and expense of the many. We need a democratically run society which enables all to maximise their potential, not a contrivance which is measured against an artificial construct of the money system.

Does this sound radical? Yes it does, but radical doesn't mean crazy, for I truly believe that the current global system which has millions starving whilst a tiny few possess unimaginable printed 'wealth' is radically at odds with what human life should be about. Accident of birth should have no bearing upon whether one dies in infancy or grand old age, yet we currently accept this as somehow just.

It is easier for most of us to envision the end of the world than the end of capitalism, yet our modern capitalist age is a blip in human history, and over the grand sweep of human existence, however long it lasts, it will be but one chapter.

Slavery has no part to play in a modern society which is what you're broadly advocating.

Money and free markets have a vital role in rewarding folk for their labour and empowers them to learn their areas of expertise/trades/etc.

Money is a vital cog in exchanging labour for reward and for making transactions such as the purchases of goods and services effortless. Money also affords ordinary working folk etc to make their own choices in their lives even if its merely deciding what food or drinks they wish to buy for themselves.

Among many other attributes that money has going for it.

Balanced free market capitalism and socialism works very well indeed.

Communism that has the state as all controlling is the undoubted currency of dictatorships.

No thank you to your 'radical voted upon projects'.

[Hibernia&Alba]

Slavery has no part to play in a modern society which is what you're broadly advocating.

Money and free markets have a vital role in rewarding folk for their labour and empowers them to learn their areas of expertise/trades/etc.

Money is a vital cog in exchanging labour for reward and for making transactions such as the purchases of goods and services effortless. Money also affords ordinary working folk etc to make their own choices in their lives even if its merely deciding what food or drinks they wish to buy for themselves.

Among many other attributes that money has going for it.

Balanced free market capitalism and socialism works very well indeed.

Communism that has the state as all controlling is the undoubted currency of dictatorships.

No thank you to your 'radical voted upon projects'.

1,How is democracy equivalent to slavery at all?? Wage slavery (control by the money system and its inevitable inhibition of talent) is exactly what I am against.


2,Balanced free market capitalism and socialism works very well indeed'. An oxymoron: we either have control by private banks for shareholder profit or democratic control for the public good.

[Tornadoes70]

1,How is democracy equivalent to slavery at all?? Wage slavery (control by the money system and its inevitable inhibition of talent) is exactly what I am against.


2,Balanced free market capitalism and socialism works very well indeed'. An oxymoron: we either have control by private banks for shareholder profit or democratic control for the public good.


We get it.

You want to transfer control of money to all powerful dictatorship governments. Communism.

Its never worked which is why folk advocate free market capitalism that includes socialist ideals.

[Hibernia&Alba]

We get it.

You want to transfer control of money to all powerful dictatorship governments. Communism.

Its never worked which is why folk advocate free market capitalism that includes socialist ideals.

Erm no. Where have I suggested such a thing? In fact the creation of money under local democratic control is just the opposite. Break up the private banks and all monopolies. You seem to miss the central point: the very thing James Connolly gave his life for i.e. truly democratic socialism.

[Tornadoes70]

Erm no. Where have I suggested such a thing? In fact the creation of money under local democratic control is just the opposite. Break up the private banks and all monopolies. You seem to miss the central point.

Your'e central point is to break up free market economies and replacing them with all powerful state controlled government ones that have never worked as per communism.

You come across entirely as a communist who advocates the currency of government dictatorships to replace free market economies that incentivise labour for reward of money that can then be exchanged for other purchases of goods and services effortlessly.

[Hibernia&Alba]

Your'e central point is to break up free market economies and replacing them with all powerful state controlled government ones that have never worked as per communism.

You come across entirely as a communist who advocates the currency of government dictatorships to replace free market economies that reward exchanges of labour for reward of money as incentive.

No it isn't; in fact it's just the opposite. Read the thread again.

[Tornadoes70]

No it isn't; in fact it's just the opposite. Read the thread again.

No thank you.

Its not the opposite at all in any way shape or form.

Most folk are very happy with free market money rewarding economies that also have socialist ideology instilled into them such as the NHS, Benefits System among many other Labour inspired actions.

What we don't need is communists spreading their cruel dictatorship mantras that have caused untold needless deaths and horrifying outcomes throughout history.

Balanced free market capitalism including underpinning soclalist fundamentals is the fairest path for world peace than your communist 'radicalism'.

No thank you.

[Fife-Hibee]

Your'e central point is to break up free market economies and replacing them with all powerful state controlled government ones that have never worked as per communism.

You come across entirely as a communist who advocates the currency of government dictatorships to replace free market economies that incentivise labour for reward of money that can then be exchanged for other purchases of goods and services effortlessly.

You fail to recognize why free market capitalism and communism are essentially the same thing.

Free market capitalism means no regulation, which results in corporate monopolies effectively taking over and regulating those markets on their own terms. Which means the markets aren't really "free" at all.

You favour corporate communism over state communism, which isn't really a better alternative.

Although it's true that too much government intervention can impact competition in a negative way, the same is also true in reverse. Having an absolutely free market with no government regulation, also kills off competition.

[Hibernia&Alba]

No thank you.

Its not the opposite at all in any way shape or form.

Most folk are very happy with free market money rewarding economies that also have socialist ideology instilled into them such as the NHS, Benefits System among many other Labour inspired actions.

What we don't need is communists spreading their cruel dictatorship mantras that have caused untold needless deaths and horrifying outcomes throughout history.

Balanced free market capitalism including underpinning soclalist fundamentals is the fairest path for world peace than your communist 'radicalism'.

No thank you.

And who is doing so? :confused:

[Tornadoes70]

You fail to recognize why free market capitalism and communism are essentially the same thing.

Free market capitalism means no regulation, which results in corporate monopolies effectively taking over and regulating those markets on their own terms. Which means the markets aren't really "free" at all.

You favour corporate communism over state communism, which isn't really a better alternative.

Although it's true that too much government intervention can impact competition in a negative way, the same is also true in reverse. Having an absolutely free market with no government regulation, also kills off competition.

Free markets include businesses of all shapes and sizes and are operating in competition across the spectrum.

Its no surprise that snp supporters favour communism and use obtuse absurd reasoning to attempt to deceive.

Free markets that reward enterprise and allow businesses to flourish that include Labour inspired fundamentals are of course the fairest and ultimately rewarding outcomes for all.

God help all of us if the snp/greens ever get their way.

[Tornadoes70]

And who is doing so? :confused:

You have been undoubtedly advocating communism in my opinion.

[Hibernia&Alba]

Free markets include businesses of all shapes and sizes and are operating in competition across the spectrum.

Its no surprise that snp supporters favour communism and use obtuse absurd reasoning to attempt to deceive.

Free markets that reward enterprise and allow businesses to flourish that include Labour inspired fundamentals are of course the fairest and ultimately rewarding outcomes for all.

God help all of us if the snp/greens ever get their way.

What? I've never voted SNP in my life :confused:. I doubt the SNP would support my ideas for a moment, such is their centrism.

You have gone full on crazy now :greengrin

[Hibernia&Alba]

You have been undoubtedly advocating communism in my opinion.

But not statism. I'm much more an anarchist/socialist libertarian of the Bakunin/Kropotkin/Goldman/Connolly& Wobblies school.

[Tornadoes70]

What? I've never voted SNP in my life :confused:. I doubt the SNP would support my ideas for a moment, such is their centrism.

You have gone full on crazy now :greengrin

The post you refer to was in reply to brainwashed fundamentalist snp Fifehibee.

I'll defer to the readers to judge whose crazymaybe or whose crazydefinitely thanks. I know you'll be against free market individual deliberating though.

:greengrin

[Hibernia&Alba]

The post you refer to was in reply to brainwashed fundamentalist snp Fifehibee.

I'll defer to the readers to judge whose crazymaybe or whose crazydefinitely thanks. I know you'll be against free market individual deliberating though.

:greengrin

He votes SNP thus he's a Bolshevik? You're right, I will certainly be against 'free markets', as I believe the phrase to be an oxymoron. Adding the word 'free' doesn't automatically make it free i.e. without restraint so that all potential is unleashed. Many of us believe such systems only allow the unscrupulous to devour the humane: for the wolves to eat the sheep, thus destroying much talent and potential. The concept of freedom is multi-faceted, as one of my great heroes, Isiah Berlin, wrote. Should we regard freedom as merely the ability to do whatever we like? If so, where does it stop?

[Tornadoes70]

He votes SNP thus he's a Bolshevik? You're right, I will certainly be against 'free markets', as I believe the phrase to be an oxymoron. Adding the word 'free' doesn't automatically make it free i.e. without restraint so that all potential is unleashed. Many of us believe such systems only allow the unscrupulous to devour the humane: for the wolves to eat the sheep, thus destroying much talent and potential. The concept of freedom is multi-faceted, as one of my great heroes, Isiah Berlin, wrote. Should we regard freedom as merely the ability to do whatever we like? If so, where does it stop?

As stated by myself in earlier postings you're not merely confused by the concept of money being the by product of trees but a full on 'Communist'..

Deary me.

God help preserve us from the athiest communists who have no conscience or religious backstop of what they do or say.

Mon Labour!!!

[Hibernia&Alba]

As stated by myself in earlier postings you're not merely confused by the concept of money being the by product of trees but a full on 'Communist'..

Deary me.

God help preserve us from the athiest communists who have no conscience or religious backstop of what they do or say.

Mon Labour!!!

And what about the socialists in The Labour Party who would agree with me? The NHS, for example, isn't based upon money but human need. Aneurin Bevan was a true socialist.

[speedy_gonzales]

1, Economies and money systems are man-made constructs: no other animal species has it. Thus the question is what is it for and what do we want to achieve?



Perhaps not economies, but there is documented evidence of animals using currency to gain food, sex, lodgings.
Pretty much the same as us!

[Fife-Hibee]

Free markets include businesses of all shapes and sizes and are operating in competition across the spectrum.

Its no surprise that snp supporters favour communism and use obtuse absurd reasoning to attempt to deceive.

Free markets that reward enterprise and allow businesses to flourish that include Labour inspired fundamentals are of course the fairest and ultimately rewarding outcomes for all.

God help all of us if the snp/greens ever get their way.

Thank you for providing your overly simplistic understanding on the matter.

[Fife-Hibee]

He votes SNP thus he's a Bolshevik? You're right, I will certainly be against 'free markets', as I believe the phrase to be an oxymoron. Adding the word 'free' doesn't automatically make it free i.e. without restraint so that all potential is unleashed. Many of us believe such systems only allow the unscrupulous to devour the humane: for the wolves to eat the sheep, thus destroying much talent and potential. The concept of freedom is multi-faceted, as one of my great heroes, Isiah Berlin, wrote. Should we regard freedom as merely the ability to do whatever we like? If so, where does it stop?

The paradox of freedom is having the freedom to take other peoples freedom away.

[1875godsgift]

Perhaps not economies, but there is documented evidence of animals using currency to gain food, sex, lodgings.
Pretty much the same as us!

To be fair, it's probably more equivalent to a bartering system, which is a bit different to a few squirrels in a tree printing loads of ten acorn notes to lend to other squirrels so they can buy their own tree.

[1875godsgift]

As stated by myself in earlier postings you're not merely confused by the concept of money being the by product of trees but a full on 'Communist'..

Deary me.

God help preserve us from the athiest communists who have no conscience or religious backstop of what they do or say.

Mon Labour!!!

Mental :drunk:

[Hibernia&Alba]

I think our friend Tornadoes70 is confusing the meaning of political terms e.g. communism, socialism and free markets. From what he has posted in this thread, he seems to think I'm advocating 1970s Czechoslovakia, which couldn't be any further from the truth. The idea is to dismantle all forms on unaccountable authority, private and public, replacing them with grassroots local democracy. In fact, what I think is most interesting about this deiscussion is the capacity for human liberation, free from both oppressive statism and private tyranny. As a Labour voter, I'm sure he is familiar with Tony Benn's view that socialism is democracy, because it takes control from the wallet and gives it to the ballot box. Capitalism, particularly its neoliberal viariant which has been pre-eminent since the 1970s, reverses that and empowers private corporations to the detriment of public control. Private corporations which are not democratically accountable either to the public or their employees. This is what privatisation was all about.

So, without going off on a tangent, lets us return to the crux of this discussion: should 97 per cent of what we call money be created and directed by private entities - banks - in their own interests. What is an economy for? So often the economy is spoken of as if it's a separate entity from society, when, of course, it is the population of a country who are the economy. It's interesting to hear a politician or economist saying a particular measure will 'harm the economy'. What do they mean by that? They should be pressed on who specifically will be harmed, as every policy is ideological, designed to advantage a particular group. Who is the policy designed to advantage and for what purpose? So, when 'the economy is harmed' who does that include?

Almost all the money (actually electronic transfers) is created from nothing by private banks, which, as said previously, really means the banks have a government licence to do nothing more to send you and I a computer generated number which only comes into existence once the borrower agrees to re-pay said number (or rather transfer it back) plus an additional number in the form of interest. The bank gets to decide who to create the 'money' for, in its own interests. If the bank gets it all wrong and collapses, that's when the public steps in, to enable the bank to begin the process again.

That really is a scam, and I think the title of the documentary in the original post is well chosen. So what's the alternative?

I think the first thing to do is set out the general principles by which we wish the system to operate. Decide what we want to achieve then create the mechanisms to achieve those goals. Put the horse in front of the cart. First we need the principles and objectives:

1, Should we have a money system at all? Let's accept we should, even if only in the name of practicality. Ergo...

2, What should a money system be for? Here we are back to ideology. What should the money system be trying to achieve? What is an economy actually for? Well, I think it should be about human liberation: fulfillment of each person to maximise our potential in the one life we each have. Here I would point to William Morris's great essay 'Useful Work versus Useless Toil' - well a worth a read, about the nature of work and why we do what we do. This being the aim, how can we do it? Ergo....

3, The economy and the money system cannot be allowed to dictate our lives; to force us into mundane jobs we hate; throw people on the scrap heap, surviving on a pittance because 'the market is a downturn'. A downturn for whom, and why? Here we mistakenly put the cart before the horse. It is we who are the economy and who should control it, not be the controlled. People should not be blown around by forces over which they have no control. How do we do that? Ergo....

4, Democracy. A mechanism by which the economy and its concomitant money system are under democratic control, accountable to the public. We decide the purposes for which money is created, not private banks. The principle is democracy, the method is public banking which is locally accountable and transparent. No more housing bubbles and property boom and busts. The current system has left over a million people in the UK living in temporary accommodation; children growing up in bed and breakfasts. Not acceptable. The precise mechanism for democratic control of the banking system would of course require careful consideration and ideas from everywhere; first we need to agree on the principle. Then there's the matter of industrial democracy....

5, Control over one's productive life requires workplace democracy: the men and women on the shop floor, factory floor, office floor democratically voting upon what is made/done, how it's done and how the rewards should be allocated. No more hierarchical private tyrannies; of orders cascading down the chain of command, with the majority having no control in the workplace. Again the principle is human liberation, the method is democracy.



I think the documentary makes some fundamental points about how we are organised in society. What we call a democracy is actually very limited. Putting a cross on a ballot paper every few years is, we are told, freedom. However, as has been touched upon in previous posts, that isn't the case, and what is freedom anyway? Whose freedom and for what ends? To me freedom must mean the maximum possible control of each individual over their own destiny, and it seems clear that 'free markets' as they presently operate don't deliver that. Freedom for the wolves to eat the sheep isn't for me. Millions of people get up every morning to go to a workplace they hate, just to obtain enough of our money system to keep body and soul together, feeling the have no control over their destiny. Millions of others have no work to go to, but are told it's the inevitable machinations of the system. That isn't my idea of freedom.

Anyway, it's an interesting discussion, though just a starting point for countless ideas which cover all aspects of human life; interconnected, symbiotic, each having cause and effect upon how we live.

[Ozyhibby]

https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/11/cuba-forced-into-rationing-as-us-sanctions-and-venezuela-crisis-bite?utm_term=Autofeed&CMP=twt_gu&utm_medium=&utm_source=Twitter&__twitter_impression=true

Another communist success story. [emoji22]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Fife-Hibee]

https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/11/cuba-forced-into-rationing-as-us-sanctions-and-venezuela-crisis-bite?utm_term=Autofeed&CMP=twt_gu&utm_medium=&utm_source=Twitter&__twitter_impression=true

Another communist success story. [emoji22]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nothing to do with carefully orchestrated trade embargos by the US then? The same country who were on the verge of killing some of their own people to generate a coup against Castro.

[Ozyhibby]

Nothing to do with carefully orchestrated trade embargos by the US then? The same country who were on the verge of killing some of their own people to generate a coup against Castro.

Surely communism can survive without trading with America? If not, why not?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Fife-Hibee]

Surely communism can survive without trading with America? If not, why not?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's like saying we could surely survive without trading with the European Union. Although we technically could, the standard of living would take a severe knock. Capitalism certainly wouldn't come to our rescue anymore than Communism will for Cuba.

[Ozyhibby]

That's like saying we could surely survive without trading with the European Union. Although we technically could, the standard of living would take a severe knock. Capitalism certainly wouldn't come to our rescue anymore than Communism will for Cuba.

I’m very sure that we would not be rationing food and barring our citizens from travelling abroad for fear they don’t come back.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Fife-Hibee]

I’m very sure that we would not be rationing food and barring our citizens from travelling abroad for fear they don’t come back.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You can be so sure how exactly? You've seen the desperation lately from the UK Government to open up ever increasing trade deals with the US. They're terrified of trade deals falling apart with the EU. Who really knows how bad things would be if we didn't have trade deals with either.

[Ozyhibby]

You can be so sure how exactly? You've seen the desperation lately from the UK Government to open up ever increasing trade deals with the US. They're terrified of trade deals falling apart with the EU. Who really knows how bad things would be if we didn't have trade deals with either.

I doubt they are worried about our living standards dropping to Cuban levels. And I don’t see us being banned from travelling anywhere. Mostly because we can kick out any govt that does not please us. That is mainly what the govt is desperate to avoid more than anything. And it’s why they will not leave the EU without a deal.
Unfortunately for the poor Cubans they don’t have the option of kicking out their govt.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

Surely communism can survive without trading with America? If not, why not?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You make an interesting point.

Playing devil’s advocate, why should a political and economic system be judged on whether a massively flawed but massively powerful nation can work with it?

America is no model of capitalism. Every time the market has crashed and wrecked the nation, government has steppd in and poured billions upon billions to stop the train crash. Roosevelt in the thirties, Obama in 2008.

Communism or socialism in their purest sense will never have a chance of working in the rigged economic system we have. And maybe they wouldn’t work anyway.

But capitalism is a myth. Free markets are a myth. As we have seen, when it comes down to it, there is always a need for a bail-out. To stop the banks shutting their doors and to ensure the ATMs kept paying out and to ensure direct debits were collected and paid.

The system is too big and complex to fail which means that government has to intervene at massive cost to the taxpayer, costs that impinge on generations.

It is a rigged system, corrupt to its bones, with the safety net that it is so entrenched that government cannot allow it to fail, because it would bring anarchy.

[Fife-Hibee]

I doubt they are worried about our living standards dropping to Cuban levels. And I don’t see us being banned from travelling anywhere. Mostly because we can kick out any govt that does not please us. That is mainly what the govt is desperate to avoid more than anything. And it’s why they will not leave the EU without a deal.
Unfortunately for the poor Cubans they don’t have the option of kicking out their govt.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The current government has been rather displeasing since 2010 and we still haven't been able to kick them out. :wink:

[Ozyhibby]

You make an interesting point.

Playing devil’s advocate, why should a political and economic system be judged on whether a massively flawed but massively powerful nation can work with it?

America is no model of capitalism. Every time the market has crashed and wrecked the nation, government has steppd in and poured billions upon billions to stop the train crash. Roosevelt in the thirties, Obama in 2008.

Communism or socialism in their purest sense will never have a chance of working in the rigged economic system we have. And maybe they wouldn’t work anyway.

But capitalism is a myth. Free markets are a myth. As we have seen, when it comes down to it, there is always a need for a bail-out. To stop the banks shutting their doors and to ensure the ATMs kept paying out and to ensure direct debits were collected and paid.

The system is too big and complex to fail which means that government has to intervene at massive cost to the taxpayer, costs that impinge on generations.

It is a rigged system, corrupt to its bones, with the safety net that it is so entrenched that government cannot allow it to fail, because it would bring anarchy.

To be fair to Obama, he didn’t start until 2009 when the bail outs had already been agreed.
I personally would have let a couple of our banks go as a lesson to the rest. Definitely RBS who had been acting illegally for years. Socialising those losses was Browns biggest failure. And the fact that they never prosecuted a single person despite all the fraud going on is the reason the likes of Farage are so popular now. And who can blame people for distrusting politicians so much after the expenses scandal.
A market based system does not need to be rigged, unfortunately our political system is corrupted by money which is why we have whole industries subsidised for no good reason. We spend over £100bn a year on corporate welfare. The system is rigged but can still be fixed. We have corporatism not capitalism.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Smartie]

To be fair to Obama, he didn’t start until 2009 when the bail outs had already been agreed.
I personally would have let a couple of our banks go as a lesson to the rest. Definitely RBS who had been acting illegally for years. Socialising those losses was Browns biggest failure. And the fact that they never prosecuted a single person despite all the fraud going on is the reason the likes of Farage are so popular now. And who can blame people for distrusting politicians so much after the expenses scandal.
A market based system does not need to be rigged, unfortunately our political system is corrupted by money which is why we have whole industries subsidised for no good reason. We spend over £100bn a year on corporate welfare. The system is rigged but can still be fixed. We have corporatism not capitalism.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm not arguing with you, but what exactly do you mean by the bit in bold?

I'm intrigued and would like to know more.

[Ozyhibby]

I'm not arguing with you, but what exactly do you mean by the bit in bold?

I'm intrigued and would like to know more.

It covers all sorts subsidies given to business for things like car scrappage schemes (it still amazes me that we were paying people to buy new cars), right to buy, oil company subsidies and tax breaks and to be fair it couldn’t all be cut.
http://www.corporate-welfare-watch.org.uk/wp/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Fife-Hibee]

To be fair to Obama, he didn’t start until 2009 when the bail outs had already been agreed.
I personally would have let a couple of our banks go as a lesson to the rest. Definitely RBS who had been acting illegally for years. Socialising those losses was Browns biggest failure. And the fact that they never prosecuted a single person despite all the fraud going on is the reason the likes of Farage are so popular now. And who can blame people for distrusting politicians so much after the expenses scandal.
A market based system does not need to be rigged, unfortunately our political system is corrupted by money which is why we have whole industries subsidised for no good reason. We spend over £100bn a year on corporate welfare. The system is rigged but can still be fixed. We have corporatism not capitalism.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You're right. A market based system does not need to be rigged. Just as a Socialist based system does not need to be rigged either.

However, they will always be rigged anyway. Idealism doesn't occur in the real world under any economic system.

[Tornadoes70]

You're right. A market based system does not need to be rigged. Just as a Socialist based system does not need to be rigged either.

However, they will always be rigged anyway. Idealism doesn't occur in the real world under any economic system.

Everything's 'rigged' according to the snp separatists.

Of course it is because if separatism ever occurred Scotland would have to drastically cut its public sector to the bare bones and the poor would be the hardest hit.

Snptory cuts would be very severe indeed causing all sorts of ill health and even death to the worst off in society but they don't care as their bigger picture is worth it for them despite the worst scenario consequences.

Mon Labour!!!

[Fife-Hibee]

Everything's 'rigged' according to the snp separatists.

Of course it is because if separatism ever occurred Scotland would have to drastically cut its public sector to the bare bones and the poor would be the hardest hit.

Snptory cuts would be very severe indeed causing all sorts of ill health and even death to the worst off in society but they don't care as their bigger picture is worth it for them despite the worst scenario consequences.

Mon Labour!!!

So many statements with so little substance.