Are Labour a total shambles now as an opposition?

[FlemishDuck]

Good point.

I suppose the important thing to remember as well in these debates about the economy is that economic growth isn’t the be all and end all.

This is actually a extremely important remark to make within a contemporary culture of mass consumerism and political ligitimacy by abillety to service the consumer. To be fair the political narrative of the last 50 years in fact seems to be that this system has proven itself by vritue that soviets couldn't buy fridges and washing machine's in the 70's, or something like that atleast. In practicle every western country "the economy" is the main political theme and it's often a game of postering about economic prowes for politicians. Like Trump, the art of the deal man TM.

But to be fair: there are a million directions a self determinist society could go into, and the diversity of cultures on the globe is so great that one should rationalise the chosen directions of his own culture as more of a cultural product rather than a logical imperative.

 

[Jack Hackett]

I think they need to look at taxing property and assets more assiduously than hitherto, especially second homes.

I think they need to cut taxes

Look at the growth and high employment Trump has created in the States by doing that

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

This is actually a extremely important remark to make within a contemporary culture of mass consumerism and political ligitimacy by abillety to service the consumer. To be fair the political narrative of the last 50 years in fact seems to be that this system has proven itself by vritue that soviets couldn't buy fridges and washing machine's in the 70's, or something like that atleast.

I think a stronger argument in favour of capitalism is that inventions such as the fridge and the washing machine were much less likely to be conceived, and absolutely less subject to development under a collectivist economic model. These are (the types of) inventions that have made life for ordinary people far easier. The profit motive has advanced human progress more as any other factor, other than perhaps warfare.

 

[The perfect fumble]

I think they need to look at taxing property and assets more assiduously than hitherto, especially second homes.

Inherited wealth is the truth that dare not speak its name when one discusses the "wealth creators".

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I think they need to cut taxes

Look at the growth and high employment Trump has created in the States by doing that

Not sure citing Trump as the apotheosis of economic perspicacity is going to advance your argument very far, mate.

 

[FlemishDuck]

I think a stronger argument in favour of capitalism is that inventions such as the fridge and the washing machine were much less likely to be conceived

Don't dig youreself a pit with that argument, obviously there's millions of years left for invention, you have to recognise that even for youre argument it would need to be seen as a function of time, aka can we have technoligy faster than otherwise.

And furthermore there is an inverse to it. Never did technoligy develop as fast during world wars, but it's hard to argue that faster innovation would be worth a world war. So as a guiding value technological progress still has a relative worth?

The profit motive has advanced human progress more as any other factor, other than perhaps warfare.

I think it's crucial to ask if we can't change the "profit" part here with "compensation". Increased compensation can motivate too, but is more strictly limited than profit.

What this boils down really is the question: "do you need capitalism to be able to create innovation trough competition"?

As a product developer i'd say there is few innovation actually provided by the managers rather than the actual engineers in that field, and yes the project leader gets a larger compensation. Still quite different than to launch youre product based on youre own design trough youre own company to then be able to potentially make rediculous profits. In fact its rather hard to go too complex as a starting entrepeneur given potential investment requirements, most significant technoligy gets developed under larger firms often even subsidised by the state only illustrating the more relevant capital requirements of it. Smaller entrepeneurs often more target such things like consumerist fad's, much innovation that.

If the state would need to organise the innovation then fine it would need to have some competing teams for their grants. Afaik when it regards the spending of the US DoD a lot of it goes to internal research projects and that provides a lot of cutting edge technoligy.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Don't dig youreself a pit with that argument, obviously there's millions of years left for invention, you have to recognise that even for youre argument it would need to be seen as a function of time, aka can we have technoligy faster than otherwise.

If you want to run a parallel argument around what would be best for humanity in a few million years then good for you, but from the luxury of my pit, I’m dealing with the here and now.

 

[FlemishDuck]

If you want to run a parallel argument around what would be best for humanity in a few million years then good for you, but from the luxury of my pit, I’m dealing with the here and now.

Same here. Especially considering that a lot of technoligy also gets developed within non profit organisations like educational centers and other state research institutions.

If i take the consideration that the speed of innovation has limits to it's cost, then i can also consider this matter in context for example of the practicle rising gap in wealth that is occuring in western society's for the last 50 or so years. Perhaps the argument could be made that decreasing this gap wouldn't nessecarily impede technological progress for what could perhaps could be a large social gain, it's not like technological progress was so limited when capitalism was far less succesfull in being greedy as it appears today.

Even then, form a engineering perspective there are many different philosophy's to consider, one of this is the concept of open source technoligy versus patents. One questions the requirement for high profitabillety within private enterprise versus the benifit of having a better technological spread and addaptation rate, especially when the state can create a competitive enviroment for it's technological grants that is rather based on compensation. Again private and public interrests are perpendicular here, i would think the faster addoptation and spread would serve the state's interrest.

 

[aguero93:20]

If you want to run a parallel argument around what would be best for humanity in a few million years then good for you, but from the luxury of my pit, I’m dealing with the here and now.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Hope that happens in early May if we don’t win on Thursday!

 

[Vic]

I think a stronger argument in favour of capitalism is that inventions such as the fridge and the washing machine were much less likely to be conceived, and absolutely less subject to development under a collectivist economic model. These are (the types of) inventions that have made life for ordinary people far easier. The profit motive has advanced human progress more as any other factor, other than perhaps warfare.

Who made a profit from the wheel?

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Who made a profit from the wheel?

That’s a tyred and circular argument.

 

[FlemishDuck]

NASA much profit. Get youre dividents now.

That’s a tyred and circular argument.

Getting fatigued of the square off?

 

[aguero93:20]

Who made a profit from the wheel?

Harry Kane is working on getting patent approval as we speak.

 

[Vic]

Re the idea that innovation needs the profit motive, here's a little reminder that one of the greatest inventions was opposed by people making profit out of human suffering.

 

[2sheikhs]

How exactly was that worded in context of the smear campain being held? Because admitting there is a problem seems still far away from getting the mark of being an anti semitist party.

It’s not an anti semitists party, I never said it was. I said a lot of anti Semitic people are in the party. Once again, as is usual with the left, you lurch towards a conclusion to try to justify a statement. If anyone disagrees with the philosophy and ideology of the hard left, then the assumption isn’t that you may be moderate. That would be an admission that you could be being unreasonable. It’s not a smear campaign against Corbyn or the Labour Party. If it was, why don’t they sue for defamation, libel and slander?

 

[FlemishDuck]

It’s not an anti semitists party, I never said it was.

Fair enough, but there is a question about propportionality of anti semitist problem, and the potential intended propaganda effects of the media story's being ran. i simply wonder wether it's such a big issue in propportional terms that it would wonder the backlash it likely would get from this.

More specificly, i kinda want to have details about what is considered anti semitist, atleast for propportional evaluation.

So i think this is a fair list?
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-45030552

Can you tell me what the most egregious example would be of anti-semitism in the Labour party? Some of them seem rather silly and marginal to be fair.

 

[Jack Hackett]

Not sure citing Trump as the apotheosis of economic perspicacity is going to advance your argument very far, mate.

Just pointing out the evidence that cutting taxes makes the economy boom - as it has done under Trump and the reverse is true - cutting people’s take home pay through higher taxes means less demand and lower GDP growth

Suggesting I’m citing Trump as the apotheosis of economic perspicacity is stretching the point a bit but your flowery language does make me smile

Whether you agree with Trump or not he has succeeded in creating substantial economic growth in the process of repatriating millions of jobs with unemployment at its lowest in 4 decades

You cannot change the macro economic truth that increasing taxes beyond the optimum point at which exchequer revenues are maximised is counter productive resulting in higher public debt through lower revenues and higher unemployment

As someone wise once wrote

‘The sun shone, having no alternative, on the nothing new’

 

[Jack Hackett]

You ain’t rich either unless you earn significantly more than £70k pa

Vat is not relevant to my argument which is about the impact of tax increases on the economy - Vat rates haven’t changed in 8 years and was not an increase proposed by Labour in its manifesto - I do agree it’s a regressive tax but not relevant to this argument

I mix with all types - you shouldn’t assume things

 

[2sheikhs]

Fair enough, but there is a question about propportionality of anti semitist problem, and the potential intended propaganda effects of the media story's being ran. i simply wonder wether it's such a big issue in propportional terms that it would wonder the backlash it likely would get from this.

More specificly, i kinda want to have details about what is considered anti semitist, atleast for propportional evaluation.

So i think this is a fair list?
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-45030552

Can you tell me what the most egregious example would be of anti-semitism in the Labour party? Some of them seem rather silly and marginal to be fair.

Would you be surprised if there were genuine racists among the ranks of UKIP? It’s not newsworthy is it because they have ideals that suit such people. The Labour Party is under the spotlight because they laud themselves as the inclusive party. Any incident, perceived, rumoured or actual, will be highlighted. It’s not done because it’s a smear campaign, it’s because people like to expose hypocrisy and double standards.