i told you; lay off the emotive invective:Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...post2053778233
It adds heat, not light.
Printable View
i told you; lay off the emotive invective:Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...post2053778233
It adds heat, not light.
Being critical of the lies and hypocrisy of Nigel Farage adds heat and not light?Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
https://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img...age-680545.jpg
And the chief financial backer of Leave, who donated millions to the Leave campaign despite having a loss-making business, is refusing to answer to Parliament over claims of links with the Russian government. So much for Parliamentary sovereignty and taking back control.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nigel Farage
Back to the mal-associations, then?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Aaron banks was the chief financial backer of "Leave.eu", which was just one of the many leave backing groups and not the official campaign which was "Vote Leave".
The way you present that obfuscates that reality in a very misleading way. More Light, less heat.
And should he answer to Parliament for his links with Russia?Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
No, specifically, I was referring to you and your refusal to engage with ideas that may bear the taint of 'neoliberalism'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
n.b. which other people might simply brand the anglo-saxon economic model (a cross-cutting but different beast entirely).
Lol, no, I find that idea as silly as the notion of reds under the bed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
To the extent it might have some truth, it is only the surface similarity due to the cross-cutting nature anglo-saxon liberalism, as someone famous once said: reality has a liberal bias.
You may have noticed that I prefaced that comment as the "extremely brief explanation", no?Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Yes, these are theoretical problems. They can be addressed by both policy and public expectation.
There is an implicit acceptance that if you want lower tax (and usually the less restrictive regulation that goes along with it), then you must scale back your expectations of what government will provide.
Dilapidated infrastructure is not uniquely an anglo-saxon economic model problem, germany has a very notable infrastructure problem despite operating a very different economic model.
1. Because we are an advanced western economy that has since thatcher chosen not to prop up uncompetitive industries, and so we shed industries in which we no longer maintained a useful competitive advantage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
2. Because of the regulatory model that the eu prefers to use, which is based on the precautionary principle rather than demonstrable harm. Which is why continentals get all hot and sweaty about GM and fracking, and why it was acceptable to phase out nuclear.
3. Because we do a total of 45% (and falling) of our external trade with the EU EU, and yet even though we are strong services economy only 36% of that total is in Services. Recognition that a single market for services does not really exist, and that services remain heavily protected in countries like germany.
Sure, I'd like him to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
But I don't see how his refusal to do so has any ironic implications for parliamentary sovereignty post-Brexit.
The rules are as they are: he cannot be compelled. That was the same as pre-June16.
Do you accept that your phrasing was misleading?
Not particularly, as I tend to the reflexive suspicion that anything linked with Russian governments won't be good for the UK. Outside inter-state relations that is, which is necessary but which I don't expect to be friendly. If anyone has any dealings with the Russian government or their subsidiaries, eg. RT, then I'd suspect them of carrying out Russia's anti-western policy, as either a useful idiot or worse. And when Banks has access to the millions that he had in the Leave campaign, despite a failing business, then that's pretty major for me. And no, I don't think highly of smaller recipients of Russian money either, like George Galloway and Jeremy Corbyn.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
And as for not being compelled; that's a weaselly way out. If Parliament wants to question you, you go and answer their questions. Full stop. If you want to use legal arguments on that count, you might as well also accept that the June 2016 referendum was advisory only, and the UK constitution does not compel Parliament to enact it. Yet the Commons felt compelled to do so anyway, cf. Corbyn's "will of the people".
Does that include industries where we had a competitive edge, but where a national vote has thrown away that edge and any kind of viability? What do you propose to do with these former workers? Console them with, bad luck mate, but it was the will of the people that you should be laid off, and that's the end of it. Just how many of these do you expect before you concede that the will of the people was a rather bad idea?Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
1. So the fact that of your phrasing of "Leave" implying the designated Leave campaign, was not misleading? When you talk of an unnamed individual (Aaron Banks), who had no connection to the official campaign (Vote Leave).Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
2. It is not a weasely way out. Yes he should attend. Yes it reflects badly that he chooses not to. No he is not compelled to do so. In this society we still (just about!) maintain the legacy of negative liberty in the english tradition: where you are free to do whatsoever that is not specifically prescribed in law. Rights are principally [against] gov't interference, rather than enabling you to achieve things.
3. Oh, believe me, I entirely take the view that referenda are advisory. Parliament is sovereign. I just equally take the view that Parliament must always beware of the people, fear them even! It is free to do whatever it likes, and in the face of tyranny 'we' are free to turn up in front of parliament with burning brands and a gibbet. Lawful rebellion was removed from statute, but the treaty was never repealed.
Sorry, I am right wing: I believe in free-trade, and I believe in the right to trade free of intereference (the quid-pro-quo of which is that I trade without expectation of subsidy).Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
I supported the removal of subsidy from the coal mines by thatcher. I do not live in [your] world where people are owed a living.
I don't like the ideas because their effects are pretty clear. They exaggerate the differences between the poor and the rich. They turn very few people into owners and the rest into debtors/dependents. Or that is what their application has done in the past 40 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
It must feel very liberating to reduce your obligations to the government as a representation of all society and instead become indebted to corporations as a representation of only the rich people who own them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
But what is the benefit of getting less for paying less? It's like saying if you want to save on fuel expenses then you need to drive to work less often. But do you really win then?Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
The major difference I see is that you allow some rich investors to profit off of essential things, which then also become unavailable to those who cannot afford them and got them from the government before. Surely the rich people who used to pay for the services before so that the poor could receive them as well, now only pay for themselves and save money. Or make a profit by owning the corporation that provides the service now. The question is why I should put their benefit over that of others if they were already doing fine under the old model as well?
Besides, the German model is not all that different, our current government keeps talking about not taking up any more debt and Bavaria for example is also hosting corporations at very low tax rates. It's just another flavor of neoliberal tendencies. :shrug:
1. What if you end up uncompetitive in all industries? Do you close down your country? Extreme example, but you can also think of a situation where you can only employ 50% of your workforce in competitive industries because those markets don't support more. What do you do with the other 50%? What do you do in the agricultural area once the neoliberal ways of growing food have degraded your soil completely? https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-10353870.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
After all you were talking about long-term benefits.
2. Did you ever hear about the demonstrable gas coming out of the tap in US areas where fracking is used? Or is that not demonstrable enough for you? Your model sounds like you prefer to drive down a cliff over braking when you see it because you can only know that it's harmful on impact...
This is pretty much why our oceans are full of plastic now, why your soil is degrading and why we are likely to run into some other catastrophes. You cannot compare what we do now to the past either because in the past we didn't invent thousands of new things every decade and the scale at which we released them into our environment was vastly different.
3. Your link said 36% of your financial services, not your overall services, are exports. Your financial services sector is 12% of your entire economy, so 36% of that would be roughly 4% of your entire economy, which is still quite significant for an entire country.
How exactly do you mean a single market for services does not exist and whose fault is that? The movie and music industries do not want there to be one for example while the EU is working on a digital single market: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-15-4919_en.htm
That's where you're contradicting yourself. Frictionless trade is trade with minimal interference. Your Brexit will put a stop to that, and industries based on JIT supply chains won't be able to do so any more. KFC was an example of a business where the JIT supply chain broke down, to the point where they couldn't even give their stuff away for free, and former customers lost confidence and the business lost a large chunk of its value. That lorry driver I linked to describes what a non-frictionless border is like for logistics people like him, and how delays result in losses of thousands of pounds for his clients. And we're talking about a single lorry driver, carrying a single load that was delayed. Things like the car industry are viable solely because of the existence of frictionless trade and JIT supply chains. Nissan has already said that each day's delay due to the unavailability of one component or another results in the loss of millions of pounds. Delays which, according to the first hand expert sources I've cited, are inevitable post-Brexit. These industries don't exist because of subsidies. They don't exist because of interference by the government to support them. But they'll stop existing because you've interfered with their workings.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
You may be a right winger, and from what you've said, a radical one at that, fully justifying the label of neoliberal in its fullest sense. While I have socialist sympathies, I'm probably a small scale conservative in its fundamental sense; I want tomorrow to be pretty much like today, so I can plan ahead. I want people to take responsibility for their own decisions and their consequences, and to keep promises they've made. All of that has been the opposite of what Brexit has been doing. Radical change without reference to the promises they made whilst campaigning, and any failure is down to people who never wanted this in the first place.
BTW, I recommend you read Night Watch, by Terry Pratchett. Particularly the bit where Vimes muses on the logistics of keeping the city fed and running, and how people in charge don't tend to think of nuts and bolts, but assume that food and drink magically appears courtesy of servants and the lower classes.
Once again, the papers equate anti-Brexit with treason.
[QUOTE=Husar;2053778511]
It must feel very liberating to reduce your obligations to the government as a representation of all society and instead become indebted to corporations as a representation of only the rich people who own them.
+
But what is the benefit of getting less for paying less? It's like saying if you want to save on fuel expenses then you need to drive to work less often. But do you really win then?
[quote]
It's a philosophical thing, putting a ceiling on the power of government, whose capacity for tyranny (and history of doing so) far exceeds any other societal actor.
For someone of the the negative liberty bent it is a fairly normal response.
Remember, I prioritise equality of opportunity, not of outcome. In principle I have no objection to an outcome that has achieved equality, in practice I believe the long march to reach this outcome would prove tyrannical in its imposition on individual liberty.
Sounds dangerously close to the lump of labour fallacy:Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy
Remember, I propose nothing revolutionary here; merely normal jogging for Australia, Canada, NZ, US.
**Warning - neoliberalism**Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
http://openeuropeblog.blogspot.com/2...market-in.html
https://financialobserver.eu/poland/...-for-services/
Inside europe, yes, but lets not pretend that the great (non) tarriff wall is anything other than a giant protectionist racket, built as a lowest common denominator compromise between a collection of largely non-freetrade nations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
"a radical one at that, fully justifying the label of neoliberal in its fullest sense" Lol, really? Truly? I'm happy to see taxed (up to) forty percent of GDP, and outside the requirement that (at least) two percent of gdp goes to defence in support of an activist foriegn policy, I'm completely at ease about what we do with the rest of the cash. Use it for benefits, the nhs, great! How on earth do you justify that statement?
What is the point of this philosophy and why do you espouse it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
Let's take a simple example where the government is almost powerless and you and someone with equal opportunity start a business of the same type. Now they use all the dirty tricks they can to completely ruin you and you literally have to live under a bridge in a cardboard box with your wife and children because the government isn't helping anyone and the other person made you a persona non grata in the entire neighborhood. With debts and no cash you can't even afford to leave the neighborhood because transport is too expensive.
How would you explain to your children that they have to live under a bridge because your philosophical dream has become true but you turned out to be a "loser" despite giving your best to overcome the other guy?
I'm not necessarily for fully equal outcomes either, but I would like to see some sort of maximum disparity with a decent minimum. Living in a cardboard box would be below my minimum.
And why, on earth, do you think taxes equal tyranny? Russia has a 13% flat tax, is it less tyrannical than Norway with its very high taxes?
Tyranny is stopped by other means than reducing all regulation. There can be tyrannical regulation, but regulating businesses and certain other interactions is not per se the road to tyranny, it's what people did on the road to civilization.
Did you miss the part where the fallacy is criticized for being a bit too simplistic? When I say markets don't support more growth, then that is a reality. You cannot spawn endless new party businesses in my area when I'm already spending all the money I have on the parties that already exist. This is similarly true for larger groups of people. I also don't see how that fallacy would apply to my second point that you quoted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
The whole tax cuts improve the economy thing is also demonstrably false by the way: https://www.facebook.com/senatorsand...5486495308585/
Can't find the video on youtube, so you'll have to watch it on Facebook I'm afraid, but basically it talks about studies showing that corporations that got tax cuts often reduced their workforce even when other corporations increased theirs. So the link between lower taxes and more growth is nowhere near proven, it's just ideological belief or even malicious claims.
**Warning - neoliberalism**
http://openeuropeblog.blogspot.com/2...market-in.html
https://financialobserver.eu/poland/...-for-services/[/QUOTE]
Wow, nothing could go wrong, like customers getting shafted because they're not aware of the other country's laws and regulations...Quote:
Originally Posted by openyurop
But hey, it's neoliberalism, so obviously it's cheering on the idea that businesses can fool customers even better and then blame the customers for not ignoring the advertisement that was carefully crafted by highly paid professionals to activate their basic instincts and walk into the trap. :wall:
And what about that second link? Luxembourg does exactly what your first link proposes. It basically whores out to corporations to offer them a low-tax environment from where they can exploit the rest of EU countries and try to apply lax Luxembourg-rules to citizens of other EU countries with stricter rules. It's one of my biggest criticisms of the EU that this leech-behavior is still allowed.
Malta, Cyprus and Ireland at the very least fall into the same category.
It says absolutely nothing about the impact of losing 4% of your economy. And I'm all for making services more open, provided the same rules apply across the entire EU instead of letting corporations pick the rules while countries compete to lower customer protections.
Overall I'm not sure what your point is because you didn't prove anything I said wrong and also didn't prove how or when Britain will actually gain from Brexit, which was your original point, no? Maybe I missed something somewhere, but arguing for a more open service market does not improve Brexit in any way.
"Let's take a simple example where the government is almost powerless and you and someone with equal opportunity start a business of the same type. Now they use all the dirty tricks they can to completely ruin you and you literally have to live under a bridge in a cardboard box with your wife and children..."
Yeah, you just built another straw man, and then knocked it down. Yay for you.
I don't subscribe to a world of zero care, devil take the hindmost dystopia. I'm not sure where you got that impression, at least; i'm unsure how you reached that point from my stated preference for less taxation and regulation.
n.b. that is "less", not "none".
Again, there is nothing radical here; it is something that is normal jogging in Australia, Canada, etc. It is liberal in the classical liberal sense of negative liberty, rather than the positive liberty sense of the collectivist state french (read: continental) liberalism.
There is another form of liberalism that the likes of Rees Mogg are opposed to, that is just as historically British as the type you describe. Reformist liberalism, that recognises that society does not only work theoretically, but that it consists of human beings who are not born with equal opportunities, that some are born privileged and will be favoured by laissez faire, and that large sections of society are born underprivileged and will need the state to help even the odds so that they do not fall under a certain level of acceptability, and that society as a whole benefits from the state thus helping the underprivileged. That form of liberalism, represented by David Lloyd George (and his protege Winston Churchill), borders on early C20 British socialism, and that border is where I fall.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
Perhaps you're just too vague, I understood your post as you not wanting any regulation to curb "personal liberty".Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
You might want to be more precise about what you want and what not.
I didn't go for none, I just assumed that since you don't care much about outcomes over opportunities, you might want to curb the "welfare state" first, hence the government not helping you.
Half the time you're not even really answering my questions so I'm left to guess what you actually try to say. :shrug:
For example, I started that part asking about your exact philosophy. You take down my examplew by saying it does not apply, but you still haven't made very clear what you mean unless the next part is meant to cover all of that.
So if that is the explanation, I'm sorry, but I don't get it, perhaps because English is not my first language or perhaps because I thought Australia and Canada were about on the same level of capitalism vs socialism as the UK. The whole positive vs negative liberty is something I never ever hear people say on the continent, all I have is vague memory of you having had a wrong concept about how laws work outside the UK in the past. IIRC it was something about everything being forbidden on the continent that isn't expressly allowed, which would be wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
That's the best I can make of this, but I guess I'm wrong again. :shrug:
no, you got it. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Concepts_of_Liberty
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
"Friedrich Hayek identified two different traditions within classical liberalism: the "British tradition" and the "French tradition". Hayek saw the British philosophers Bernard Mandeville, David Hume, Adam Smith, Adam Ferguson, Josiah Tucker and William Paley as representative of a tradition that articulated beliefs in empiricism, the common law and in traditions and institutions which had spontaneously evolved but were imperfectly understood. The French tradition included Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Marquis de Condorcet, the Encyclopedists and the Physiocrats. This tradition believed in rationalism and sometimes showed hostility to tradition and religion. Hayek conceded that the national labels did not exactly correspond to those belonging to each tradition: Hayek saw the Frenchmen Montesquieu, Benjamin Constant and Alexis de Tocqueville as belonging to the "British tradition" and the British Thomas Hobbes, Joseph Priestley, Richard Price and Thomas Paine as belonging to the "French tradition".[24][25] Hayek also rejected the label laissez-faire as originating from the French tradition and alien to the beliefs of Hume and Smith.
Guido De Ruggiero also identified differences between "Montesquieu and Rousseau, the English and the democratic types of liberalism"[26] and argued that there was a "profound contrast between the two Liberal systems".[27] He claimed that the spirit of "authentic English Liberalism" had "built up its work piece by piece without ever destroying what had once been built, but basing upon it every new departure". This liberalism had "insensibly adapted ancient institutions to modern needs" and "instinctively recoiled from all abstract proclamations of principles and rights".[27] Ruggiero claimed that this liberalism was challenged by what he called the "new Liberalism of France" that was characterised by egalitarianism and a "rationalistic consciousness".[28]"
https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?QueryId=21699
So would you admit Lloyd George and Churchill to be genuine British liberals, or are they too continental for your taste?
You're still confusing me. You called my example from earlier a strawman because it is not what you want. It is something that probably could happen to you in Chile. Chile is a country that follows the Hayek/Friedman principle that was set up by people who were directly educated about it by Friedman in the US, the "Chicago Boys", and they did it under a dictatorship, funnily enough... So here you're quoting Hayek and other people espousing these ideas, but when I talk about the downsides of their relatively pure implementation as seen in Chile, you keep calling it a strawman and say it's not what you want.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
Perhaps you want to explain to me what is so great about Chile and its relatively pure implementation of the economics you're advertising here?
Or perhaps it's just that Australia and Canada don't quite follow the ideology you think you want as much as I assume you want it? Do you even want it fully implemented or just to a certain degree? Please enlighten me.
What do you like about it and what not?
You won't be able to speak from experience as you're from the German education system, but I can tell you that the pure market liberalism Furunculus talks about is as alien to your average Englishman as the dialectic materialism of Marx and Engels. In the British education system, it's pure Whig up to the end of compulsory education, at which point progressive liberalism takes over, which approaches society from the opposite pole from which Furunculus argues. Pure market liberalism as Furunculus argues it is the realm of the privileged elite, who are the only ones to benefit from it. It only gains traction from its association with patriotism, or more accurately, its opponents' utter lack of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
your being given philosophical context, not a practical implementation to aspire to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
pannonian above is not quite right, i'd suggest, noting instead that the British education system is pure progressiveism up to the end of compulsory education, something which can just about be labelled 'liberalism' but in fact bears little relationship to classical liberalism of the negative liberty type.
despite this, it cannot be said that britain as a whole has ever attained an acceptance of socialism, with our left wing movement rooted in the labour movement instead. nor too can it be said that we have achieved the level of enthusiam for collective social action and positive liberty as found in france etc.
the explanation of the difference between british and french liberalism being a good primer here.
So after I told you why your tax cuts plan is a bad idea, the only answer you have is "but according to my ideology here, it's a good idea!"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
That's it?
That pretty little voice-over'ed infographic is *one* view, here is another:Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
https://iea.org.uk/wp-content/upload...Growth-PDF.pdf
Here is a nice chewy extract, that wouldn't easily be put into some chirpy narration for a web-video:
Quote:
The size of government: maximising growth and welfare
Given the macro- and microeconomic effects of government spending and taxation on growth and welfare, as well as the fact that the provision of certain public goods can be regarded as welfare enhancing, it is reasonable to ask whether there are ‘growth-maximising’ or ‘welfare-maximising’ levels of government expenditure. There is a third statistic of interest, which is the revenue-maximising level of taxation and spending – if the government is spending beyond this level, it means that a reduction in tax rates will increase growth sufficiently that tax revenues will increase. A government spending beyond this level is totally destructive of economic welfare. Clearly, there are growth and welfare maximising levels of government spending in theory, but, in practice, it is much more difficult to identify those levels. Indeed, the growth-maximising and welfare-maximising levels of government spending will depend on a number of time- and context-specific factors (for example, how mobile labour and capital are – if they are more mobile, tax is more likely to be damaging to growth; how efficiently government provides services; and the shape of the tax system).
Despite the practical difficulties, we can make some generalisations and, during this debate, certain rules of thumb – that were based on older national accounts definitions, however – have tended to become accepted by people who have worked in this area (Smith 2006). These included:
• The growth-maximising share of government spending in
GDP was some 20–25 per cent of GDP. This was based on the
fact that ratios in this range were typical of the fast growing
South East Asian ‘Tiger’ economies, countries such as Japan
and Korea in their high growth phases, and even Australia,
Canada and Spain in the 1950s.
This indicative range should
probably be revised down to some 18.5–23.5 per cent, using
current (June 2016) UK definitions.
• The welfare-maximising share of government spending
in GDP was less than some 30–35 per cent of GDP. This
conclusion was based on the work of Tanzi and Schuknecht
(2000) and Tanzi (2008), who examined the effects of state
spending on a range of objective measures of human
wellbeing. They concluded that there was no sign of
improved outcomes for welfare measures once spending had
exceeded these limits. Subsequent methodological changes
• The upper limit on taxable capacity was around 38 per
cent, implying that the public finances eventually became
unsustainable if general government expenditure was
allowed to increase much beyond 40 per cent of GDP. (8)
On current definitions, the upper limit on taxable capacity
in Britain seems to be around 37.5 per cent of factor-cost
GDP (Figure 1), or 33 per cent on the market-price measure,
suggesting that spending only becomes sustainable when it
falls into the 37–38 per cent range.
The ratios calculated using the factor-cost measure of national income would be higher. However, it is not difficult to convert from one basis to another, using the GDP figures in Table 4. It is also worth noting that Mr osborne’s March 2016 Budget target that government spending should be down to 37.2 per cent of market-price GDP by 2020/21 looks at the upper margin of what is reasonable if the aim is long-term fiscal sustainability, but not, of course, if the aim is welfare maximisation. Certainly, there seems little scope for the new Chancellor, Mr Hammond, to relax his predecessor’s spending targets
British progressivism, of the sort touted by the majority of the British people, is rooted in the idea that the unregulated Victorian past was a Bad Thing, and reforms to bring us to the modern Britain we live in were a Good Thing. Thus one of the most lasting electoral principles is Better Services. During the referendum campaign, this meshed with patriotic arguments, framed as anti-Europeanism, into the infamous pledge: "We send 350 million per week to the EU. Let's spend it on the NHS instead." Few people tout the free market liberalism that you proclaim to be uniquely British. Most hark back instead to the single society of WW2, which ironically was the most regulated Britain has ever been, or they look to the reformist liberalism of Lloyd George, Asquith and Churchill, which reached its apogee with Attlee's Welfare State.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
Present the average Briton with two viewpoints, ostensibly describing the same thing, but with polar opposite approaches. Firstly, that the free market is a necessity for an economy fit to provide society with better services. Secondly, that services are a necessity that bolsters the free market. Both describe a balance between the market and the state. The first looks to strengthen the state wherever possible. The second looks to reduce the state wherever possible. The difference is why anyone describing Blair as a neoliberal is talking balls.
And BTW, compulsory history education in Britain is pure Whig, typified by 1066 and All That.
Authoritarian liberalism ~ neoliberalism is not about reducing the state, it is about redirecting it into security operations (internal and external) to support horizontally-integrated elite market actors. Let's face it, the Western leaders of the post-Cold War period were infatuated with austerity (which was only continued from, not begun with, 2008) and extremely short-sighted.
Nice article on the "Supermanagerial Reich".
Clickbait title: Neoliberalism is Fascism
Accurate title: The Structures of Governance in Nazi Fascism and Contemporary Authoritarian Liberalism are Convergent
Synopsis:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
In the end it seems the trouble is a more historically-recurrent one of failing to take into consideration sufficient stakeholders. You can't recursively concentrate wealth and power in fewer hands forever, it always leads to unrest among the unrepresented.
Funnily enough, our society mirrors the stagnation of the Soviet Union. Governments have made decisions to deliver us a certain standard of living, but this standard of living is much too low and alienating (really declining) and its unsuitability for most people cannot be assuaged entirely with increasing state repression and pervasive warmaking.
The Soviet Union collapsed in the wake of popular unrest, of course. Their government acknowledged the outcome and made the decision not to escalate with violence...
very interesting, but where does this fit into the debate where it is now, or even the broader terms of the topic at large?
The British people do not want to deregulate in order to move even more wealth into the hands of the few. Your argument in favour of these principles is wrong, and your argument that this is distinctively British is even more wrong. The British people want wealth to move in the other direction, if not in terms of ready money, then certainly in terms of Better Services. As shown in the belief of the Brexit Dividend, and More Funds for the NHS.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
"We send 350 million per week to the EU. Let's spend it on the NHS instead."
Fulfil this pledge, and I'll have no arguments with Brexit, for they'll have owned up to their promises and kept them.
That is *a* view, but I've seen nothing to convince me that we harbour the same collectivist ambition that permits taxation approaching half of gdp, or that we desire to regulate the freedom to do socially 'bad' things to the same extent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
P. S. are we not now spending 350m on the NHS now?
Isn't that a framing issue?Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
Most people don't think or care in terms of GDP-proportionate spending, and those who do usually do so from a status-quo bias.
On the other hand, if you get down to it, you might find that people favor a social contract framed in terms of caring for and investing in one another as the overarching principle.
Are you deliberately miscontruing the pledge? The promise was to spend the money that was previously sent to the EU, ie. the 350 million per week that was previously spent on EU dues should be added to the NHS budget. Not 350 million per week to be the budget. And not raise taxes in order to claim that this is the Brexit dividend. Same level of taxation, 350 million per week extra for the NHS.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
"We send 350 million per week to the EU. Let's spend it on the NHS instead."
The above was from the official Leave campaign, with Boris Johnson (currently a cabinet minister) among others campaigning in front of it.
Or less abstractly, people want Better Services.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
He's already said he's never going to feel pinned about this, because he's not aligned with the mainstream Brexit promoters and only considers himself a fellow traveler. Find another angle if you intend to discomfit him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
I worded it that way because I think a large majority of people in most countries would agree with that articulation. The one catch is that people differ on the particulars, the exceptions, exemptions, limitations, concerns...Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
As for "Better Services": like basically every country in Europe, Sweden has been continually cutting both taxes and services for decades. In 2014,
However, both the major social democratic and conservative party have agreed that there will not be tax hikes under any circumstances, only cuts.Quote:
According to polls, 90% of the Swedish population wants to get rid of venture capitalists in the public sector and 80% would agree to pay higher taxes if welfare levels are increased. The support for the welfare state is still intact and has even risen slightly during the last decades.
I don't know what the popular support for More Taxes = More Services might be in Sweden today, but clearly the far-right option of the Swedish Democrats has taken advantage of the situation by being pro-ethnonationalist and pro-welfare. That means dudes like Kadagar.
The Swedish general election is coming this September, and the Social Democrats are are neck-and-neck for the lead with mainsteam parties...
So @Furunc, the syllogism is clear: a vote for tax cuts and pro-market is a vote for fascist renewal in Europe.
Just because I know you will hate me for saying that: The IAE spawned the aforementioned Atlas Foundation...Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
And it shows everywhere in the language that their concerns are purely monetary, like when they say investment in education is only viable when a reduction in taxation does not lead to stronger economic growth...
One could also ask whether growing the economy is really the only goal a country should have?
The part you quote only repeats what you said, I cannot find the part where they show when the taxes catch up after a tax cut and calculate that against inflation and the "damages" done in the meantime to show how long it takes for the benefits of a tax cut to actually be noticeable in terms of higher tax revenue.
And what does this mean?
Are they implying the latter items are less important than the "primary" ones?Quote:
Looking at the expenditure side, Table 15 reveals that only
10.4 per cent of government expenditure is accounted for by the
two ‘primary’ government functions of external defence and the
maintenance of law and order. Even adding in debt interest only
brings that total to 15.5 per cent of government spending or 7 per
cent of factor-cost GDP. This contrasts with the three big items
of social protection (14.1 per cent of factor-cost GDP), health
(8.5 per cent) and education (6 per cent).
I may look further into it later, but I don't have the time to read all of it unless I'm willing to seriously tax my own economic growth so to say...
He was trying to argue that his free market liberalism was somehow distinctively British, unlike the alien continental mindset of looking to bolster society. I pointed out that reformist liberalism was the mainstream British political worldview, which is some way towards social democracy on the social scale, and that his free market liberalism is as alien to the British mainstream as dialectic materialism. As a marker of that, I pointed him to the most well known pledge of the Leave campaign, and stated that, if they can fulfil this pledge, I'd have no problem with Brexit, as they'd be keeping their promises after winning the vote.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
OK, but regarding your satisfaction with Brexit...Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
You aver that you want tomorrow to be like today insofar as you can plan ahead. How would 350 million pounds more NHS funding relative to something or other satisfy that priority (and funding is funding for the government's purposes, you don't receive a treasure chest of gems that could then be directed to a different account receivable, so '350 million pounds more NHS funding" is just what the Brexit blandishment means in practice)? Could you really set aside wider economic and political concerns surrounding Brexit, concerns you've been consistent with for years, for this low, low, price in NHS spending? Does the government's current policy agenda accomplish this rather modest boost to the NHS?
Doesn't seem coherent on those terms. Without further ragging, I think you were just trying to advance the position that you would be more supportive of Brexit if you considered Team Brexit to be trustworthy - is that fair?
If they can add 350 million pw to the NHS's funds without increasing taxes, wouldn't that mean that the economic argument works out? FWIW, May has said that the NHS will indeed be seeing such an increase in funding. But the talk is that taxes will be raised to pay for it. Which begs the question of Brexiteers, what happened to the 350 million pw that we used to send to the EU, if any increases to the NHS's funding has to come from additional taxes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
[delete]
rofl, what do we really care about here? whether [our] beloved NHS gets the funds it so deservedly needs, or, how we came by them?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
besides, am I really hearing this right; a labour person compliaining about raising taxation (a moral necessity) to pay for the great secular holy of holies (the NHS)?
:D
no more than anyone else 'frames' the issue around what we want our gov't to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
"how will we support [our] NHS?"
In europe?Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Never hate, Husar, just amusement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Yes indeed, the possibility exists for fundamentally different social compacts built around the collective expectations of those who constitute society. Clearly, some have gone further than others in sacrificing their individual (negative) liberty to build their collective (positive) liberty. It is a valid choice - who could argue otherwise - but it is not the only 'valid' choice.
I'd like the Brexiteers to keep their promises. Do you think Leave should keep its promises?Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
To the best of their ability, yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Might be better to suggest they not make promises they cannot reasonably keep, because it is not within their gift to do so.
but that applies to both sides.
OK, but government expenditures at the order of 350 million is a tiny fluctuation that could come from anywhere, from an active decision to sell a few bonds for that single purpose to a quasi-random change in balances due to population change, changes in usage or consumption, or short-term rebalanced revenue collection, which in turn could knock on from miniscule changes in the world economy. Hard to identify a single explanatory variable like "Brexit".Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Does that really compensate for what you revealed is disrupting JIT logistics and business stability, unavoidable border friction at Dover and other ports of entry, losing place in the EU deliberative process? It's hard to reconcile with your attitudes in this thread.
Well, you are in Europe and this is a thread about Europe. I think it also proves likely to apply throughout the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
Oh, and good point to recall that the "West" still sets an example to the rest of the world, and Western economics drive politics elsewhere (and between each other) - can't forget the relational factor, countries are not fixed unitary actors. Internal policy is not the only story.
Chain shift!
Ah, in that case:
I don't accept that a vote for tax cuts and pro-market is a vote for fascist renewal in the UK. I'm not qualified to comment on Europe as a whole, not least because it constitutes dozens of separate nations each with their own political history.
Experts in the fields (areas supposedly benefiting from the "Brexit dividend") have already demolished May's claims of how the increases will be funded (within hours of her announcements), so it doesn't seem that hard to add things up and compare the numbers. If you want to buy something from me, does it really matter how you pay for it? But if you want to buy something from me, but preface that with rummaging around in my till, it doesn't take much to put two and two together to work out where you found the money from.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
If they can't keep their main promises, but try to do what they promised they wouldn't do (get a worse deal than Norway, which was Leave's assured model of Brexit), then what kind of mandate do they still have?Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
Are you.... Putting words in their mouth?
If this standard were rigorously applied, all governance would cease. Our politicians simply could not function under such a crushing limitation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
Given the Tory government went to the polls with the aim of strengthening their position, and lost the slim majority that they had, it wouldn't be stretching the argument to say that the mandate for a radical free market Brexit, aka hard Brexit, is not there. It would even be the mathematical truth if the anti-hardBrxiteers and the opposition can drum up more MPs than the hardBrexiteers. OTOH, PM May is saying that Parliament should not obstruct the government in its work. I'm not sure where she thinks her government gets its legitimacy and authority from though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
I do think you have a point here, re: the mandate for the free marketeer brexit. But it certainly wasn't a clear rejection either. Mixed message all round.
I had a shower moment. Instead of hard or soft Brexit. We are aiming for Schrodinger's Brexit.
A state we are both simultaneous inside and outside the European Union, with the answer depending on who is asking. The issue is, hopefully no one will try to open the box to actually reveal the reality of the situation.
Airbus have said that it will be planning for a no-deal Brexit given the current uncertainty, and in such a situation will leave the UK. The supply chain is cited. Airbus directly employs 14,000 in the UK, with over 100,000 supported.
How many of these will it take before Brexiteers admit Brexit is a bad idea?
A shower moment, what's that, do know the bath-moment, shower-moment would be everything gliding offQuote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
They will all get hired by BAE Systems to sell more bombers to Turkey and China.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
It's the democratic way.
Will you forgive me if I say this comes across as very Chicken Little?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
If we want independent self government then we can damn well have it. :)
p.s. an interesting speech on the vision to pursue for brexit:
https://brexitcentral.com/vision-glo...rexit-britain/
Where you are in the shower doing a mundane activity so your mind wonders as you contemplate existence, forming connections you would normally not consider as your mind is too occupied with other things. Thus it is common for inspiration to occur.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Just had to look it up and came up with advertisements. A bath-moment refers to archimedes formula of calculating mass with the help of measuring volume with water displacement, hence the bathQuote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Yes I am being a jerk here
Everyone should have a hobby they enjoy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Got to admit that the shower vs bath cryptism wasn't handled poorlyQuote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Brexiteers are developing their Dolchstosslegende, as civil servants had correctly noted.
Britain is about to go tits up. But it's not the fault of Brexit. It's the fault of the implementers implementing Brexit badly. It's never their fault.Quote:
Brexit done properly will make this country richer, Brexit done badly will leave us in a worse position than before. Brexit on its own isn't some magic cure. What Brexit does is put us back in control of our lives and the problem is, the Prime Minister appears to be rather reluctant to take up that opportunity
Haven't you been paying attention? TheFrance/GermanyEU is in a massive crisis
Tell that to the guy above. He made sure he got himself a German passport post-Brexit, while the former chairman of Leave lives in France and has no intention of living in the UK.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
That's stupid of him, he should have gone to Italy as the 2000 billion debt they have does't really bother them all that much considering the transfer-union the Merkel and the Macron want, schnaps for the south, bill for the north, the distribution of the schaffende childless mutti isn't going very well for her either she's about to get shafted (she voluntered for it unlike other frauleins who get shafted by the Mutti's little children).Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
The EU is in shambles.
But it's typical of wealthy Brexiteers. Make sure you have an escape route, so you can buy up bankrupt UK businesses for a song (bankrupt because you're anticipating a plummeting UK economy) whilst not having to experience the UK post-Brexit. Even if you have to live here, as an active politician needs to, make sure you diversify your investments overseas, as the Brexitters' darling Tree Frog has done.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Hypocracy isn't really a good argument, they probably got stocks invested, hypocracy you can find everywhere. In the end the EU is nothing more than a very costly overhead with a twisted relationship between France and Germany nobody is interested in. The EU has no reason to exist, it was all fine before it came to be. A hard brexit might even benefit you as it opens up trade routes (might take a while), you are so pessimistic. The EU is about to crumble, who doesn't sees that comming should get a role in Forest Gumb 2Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
A leaked report states that if there's a "hard" Brexit the UK will run out of food within c. 6 weeks. The news articled did not mention whether this is due to the collapse of the pound (which was due to happen when we didn't join the Euro) or else that there is no food in the world that could be purchased.
That's right folks - leaving the EU will have a greater impact on the UK than did WW2...
Might food cost more? Probably. Might there be some logistical problems - possibly leading to some items out of stock for a long time? Possibly. But the absence of food that would put people's lives at risk??!? Not even Venezuela managed it this quickly.
~:smoking:
Ah, a leaked report. By knowologues with phd's who should be gently but firmly be escorted to they comfort-space no doubt. Marmite will be more expensive though and you brits do need that tiamide aka b1 that's in it. Hardly a punnishment to pay more for a generously butter-spread toast with carefully spread marmite on it, yummie.
This may actually be true, but I think we would heavily differ on the reasons for that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
As long is it doesn't get scary that's ok no? That's the thing really, eurocrats are scared and we can hardly call them a cornered cat anymoreQuote:
Originally Posted by Husar
WWI might be a better comparison. Drawing from the lessons of WWI, WWII started with immediate rationing and other aspects of a command economy, so as to make most efficient use of limited resources. WWI began with the assumption of continued normality. When the u-boat blockade bit, something that won't be a factor here, resources became more limited than people were accustomed to, something that will have a parallel here, and a black market arose that both benefited those with needed resources and prompted a panicked run on said resources. Something that we can expect some degree of once the logistical chain breaks down all round. I can point you to the internal blockade of oil refineries in the early 2000s, which was a controlled tightening on a single resource, and the chaos that prompted. With a no-deal Brexit, you can expect that to repeat, except that it will happen across the spectrum, and it won't be called off once the lorry drivers have reached an agreement.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Oh, and none of the current politicians are a patch on the War Cabinet of 1939. Or even the one in 1914. And I expect people will be less tolerant of central control either. So expect a repeat of the oil blockade of 2000, but worse, affecting all aspects of life.
Farage being investigated for manipulating the markets on the night of the referendum. Some pretty odd behaviour from him on the night, while some of his backers made fairly vast amounts on the movement of the markets.
Perhaps because they expected the outcome to be the way it is? That's not manipulation that is how it works. It changes if prior knowledge on the outcome is there, but there isn't, nothing but sour empty hands
There ya go.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
No I don't, it's risky to anticipate, very risky. Maybe I am wrong, don't hold it against me if I am, but it was pretty much expected that the Brits would vote for a brexit. These kind of things can make markets go crazy. There is a hidden insuation that the outcome of the referendum isn't legitimate in this inquiry and that is foul play imo, want to know more but expect to get littleQuote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Nail on the head. In retrospect some pretty odd behaviour from Farage on the night indeed. In contrast with the Turkish opposition in the election just gone, which is more typical.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Thank goodness we've left the EU, or else we might have been forced to participate. Hang on, what was that? We've actually asked to participate? And other, actual EU members, don't have to participate?Quote:
Nine EU member states have agreed to establish a European military force for rapid deployment in times of crisis, an initiative which has won the backing of the UK as it seeks to maintain defence ties after Brexit.
Spearheaded by the French president, Emmanuel Macron, the joint enterprise will allow national armed forces across Europe to coordinate and react swiftly together.
Ministers from France, Germany, Belgium, Britain, Denmark, the Netherlands, Estonia, Spain and Portugal signed a letter of intent in Luxembourg on Monday.
So it is a such a total mess nobody can understand it anymore, that? Hiding in plain sight, but ohohoh how populist of you to not trust them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
And now BMW have said that its UK plants will close if supply chains stop at the border. How many will there have to be before Leavers admit that Brexit is a bad idea?
Will you forgive me if I say this comes across as very Chicken Little?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
If we want independent self government then we can damn well have it. :)