The Post General Election Thread

[Prestwich_Blue]

While shoot the messenger is always good sport, I post the quote from the man in the funny hat because the bear shitting in the woods was unavailable for comment.

The point is a simple one, "trickle down" does not work, nor does another right wing sound bite "a rising tide lifts all boats". Left to it's own devices the market will concentrate more and more wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer people.

This isn't just some crazy notion, it is happening here and all the statistics back it up, that's why the euphemism "squeezed middle" or as we tend to refer to it in the UK "hard working families" is on the lips of politicians of both left and right

That is not to say that capitalism is not the best engine for growth, it is, but what kind of capitalism do we want? And what is the most socially and economically desirable model? How do you maintain a dynamic capitalism while ensuring the fruits of that dynamism are enjoyed by as many of those engaged in the process as possible. This is as much a problem for the 1% as the rest of us, because it's in their long term interest that more and more people have cash in their pockets to spend on goods and services, because if they don't, businesses fail and at worst the fabric of society begins to break down.

It's amazing isn't it? You quote all sorts of empirical studies and numbers to the Tory boys and they dismiss it, not with an intellectual or quantitative counter-argument, but with sarcasm.

 

[Zuriblue]

The jet engine of capitalism tied to the ox cart of social justice on the runway of equality flanked by the green grass of environmentalism and the whipping post of political comeuppance?

Trickle down economics mate.

Never fails does it?

 

[aguero93:20]

While shoot the messenger is always good sport, I post the quote from the man in the funny hat because the bear shitting in the woods was unavailable for comment.

The point is a simple one, "trickle down" does not work, nor does another right wing sound bite "a rising tide lifts all boats". Left to it's own devices the market will concentrate more and more wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer people.

This isn't just some crazy notion, it is happening here and all the statistics back it up, that's why the euphemism "squeezed middle" or as we tend to refer to it in the UK "hard working families" is on the lips of politicians of both left and right

That is not to say that capitalism is not the best engine for growth, it is, but what kind of capitalism do we want? And what is the most socially and economically desirable model? How do you maintain a dynamic capitalism while ensuring the fruits of that dynamism are enjoyed by as many of those engaged in the process as possible. This is as much a problem for the 1% as the rest of us, because it's in their long term interest that more and more people have cash in their pockets to spend on goods and services, because if they don't, businesses fail and at worst the fabric of society begins to break down.

It's amazing isn't it? You quote all sorts of empirical studies and numbers to the Tory boys and they dismiss it, not with an intellectual or quantitative counter-argument, but with sarcasm.

And that's nothing to do with most of them espousing some spin doctor's sound bites rather than any actual opinion of their own of course :)

 

[The perfect fumble]

While shoot the messenger is always good sport, I post the quote from the man in the funny hat because the bear shitting in the woods was unavailable for comment.

The point is a simple one, "trickle down" does not work, nor does another right wing sound bite "a rising tide lifts all boats". Left to it's own devices the market will concentrate more and more wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer people.

This isn't just some crazy notion, it is happening here and all the statistics back it up, that's why the euphemism "squeezed middle" or as we tend to refer to it in the UK "hard working families" is on the lips of politicians of both left and right

That is not to say that capitalism is not the best engine for growth, it is, but what kind of capitalism do we want? And what is the most socially and economically desirable model? How do you maintain a dynamic capitalism while ensuring the fruits of that dynamism are enjoyed by as many of those engaged in the process as possible. This is as much a problem for the 1% as the rest of us, because it's in their long term interest that more and more people have cash in their pockets to spend on goods and services, because if they don't, businesses fail and at worst the fabric of society begins to break down.

It's amazing isn't it? You quote all sorts of empirical studies and numbers to the Tory boys and they dismiss it, not with an intellectual or quantitative counter-argument, but with sarcasm.

Of course, left wingers are the ones who are straitjacketed by ideology, but all we ever get in reply from the right is lame jokes and "There Is No Alternative, if TINA isn't a straitjacket I don't know what is.

Britain is a capitalist economy, so is Germany and so is India and Singapore for that matter, each of these countries pay homage to Adam Smith, but the practical application of capitalist thinking is quite different in each country.

The type of Anglo Saxon capitalism practiced here, and in the USA, is known primarily for its short termism and rapaciousness, very different to that of Germany, but then we never look to Germany for any positive examples, despite her being the most successful economy in Europe.

I have a friend who lives in Munich who tells me it's because we're an Island and can't see beyond our shores, except for those things we want to see.

He might well be right.

 

[Chancy Termites]

Germany has its EU fiefdom to keep it where it is. Within a currency union trade surpluses and deficits must balance out. So long as the PIGS remain poor, Germany will be rich.

But then the EU isn't exactly "capitalism".

 

[The perfect fumble]

Germany has its EU fiefdom to keep it where it is. Within a currency union trade surpluses and deficits must balance out. So long as the PIGS remain poor, Germany will be rich.

But then the EU isn't exactly "capitalism".

Not, it's a type of South Sea mollusc.

And the post war German economic miracle is down to Marshall Aid, a French/German conspiracy, garlic bread and lederhosen.

Have you any idea the number of Trading Blocs throughout the world? There's barely a country of note not a member of one...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_bloc

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4510792.stm

 

[Damocles]

While shoot the messenger is always good sport, I post the quote from the man in the funny hat because the bear shitting in the woods was unavailable for comment.

The point is a simple one, "trickle down" does not work, nor does another right wing sound bite "a rising tide lifts all boats". Left to it's own devices the market will concentrate more and more wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer people.

This isn't just some crazy notion, it is happening here and all the statistics back it up, that's why the euphemism "squeezed middle" or as we tend to refer to it in the UK "hard working families" is on the lips of politicians of both left and right

That is not to say that capitalism is not the best engine for growth, it is, but what kind of capitalism do we want? And what is the most socially and economically desirable model? How do you maintain a dynamic capitalism while ensuring the fruits of that dynamism are enjoyed by as many of those engaged in the process as possible. This is as much a problem for the 1% as the rest of us, because it's in their long term interest that more and more people have cash in their pockets to spend on goods and services, because if they don't, businesses fail and at worst the fabric of society begins to break down.

It's amazing isn't it? You quote all sorts of empirical studies and numbers to the Tory boys and they dismiss it, not with an intellectual or quantitative counter-argument, but with sarcasm.

Of course, left wingers are the ones who are straitjacketed by ideology, but all we ever get in reply from the right is lame jokes and "There Is No Alternative, if TINA isn't a straitjacket I don't know what is.

Britain is a capitalist economy, so is Germany and so is India and Singapore for that matter, each of these countries pay homage to Adam Smith, but the practical application of capitalist thinking is quite different in each country.

The type of Anglo Saxon capitalism practiced here, and in the USA, is known primarily for its short termism and rapaciousness, very different to that of Germany, but then we never look to Germany for any positive examples, despite her being the most successful economy in Europe.

I have a friend who lives in Munich who tells me it's because we're an Island and can't see beyond our shores, except for those things we want to see.

He might well be right.

Germany is the conglomeration of numerous different and smaller countries into a unified whole which created an instant economic powerhouse over night. Measuring our successes versus the German economies, especially after the resulting damages of the World Wars is absolutely not a fair comparison.

 

[The perfect fumble]

It's amazing isn't it? You quote all sorts of empirical studies and numbers to the Tory boys and they dismiss it, not with an intellectual or quantitative counter-argument, but with sarcasm.

Of course, left wingers are the ones who are straitjacketed by ideology, but all we ever get in reply from the right is lame jokes and "There Is No Alternative, if TINA isn't a straitjacket I don't know what is.

Britain is a capitalist economy, so is Germany and so is India and Singapore for that matter, each of these countries pay homage to Adam Smith, but the practical application of capitalist thinking is quite different in each country.

The type of Anglo Saxon capitalism practiced here, and in the USA, is known primarily for its short termism and rapaciousness, very different to that of Germany, but then we never look to Germany for any positive examples, despite her being the most successful economy in Europe.

I have a friend who lives in Munich who tells me it's because we're an Island and can't see beyond our shores, except for those things we want to see.

He might well be right.

Germany is the conglomeration of numerous different and smaller countries into a unified whole which created an instant economic powerhouse over night. Measuring our successes versus the German economies, especially after the resulting damages of the World Wars is absolutely not a fair comparison.

Comparing different economies is always like that, a member of the audience during the election debates quizzed Ed Milliband on the contrast between our post recession performance and that of natural resource rich Canada and Australia, if you think about it, any one of the G8 economies could be judged as not being a "fair" comparison with the UK for a variety of reasons.

So the only comparison that produces anything we can use is "best practice", their modus operandi, and using that, on any number of measures, we can learn a lot from Germany, particularly the performance of the German Mittelstand....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mittelstand

"Mittelstand refers to small and medium-sized enterprises in German-speaking countries, especially in Germany, Austria and Switzerland. Economic and business historians have been increasingly giving Mittelstand companies more and more credit for Germany's economic growth since the beginning of the 20th century, often under the name of hidden champions......

Mittelstand companies are "highly focused, achieving unprecedented efficiencies by designing a business model with a razor-thin focus and learning to do the one thing really well"; then to "compensate for their razor-thin focus . . . they diversify internationally and enjoy great economies of scale". Mittelstand companies benefit from Germany's apprenticeship system, which provides highly skilled workers; and there is a "collaborative spirit that generally exists between employer and employees . . . . In the post-reunification recession, it seemed only natural to German workers to offer flexibility on wages and hours in return for greater job security.".

Spot the difference?

 

[Damocles]

Of course, left wingers are the ones who are straitjacketed by ideology, but all we ever get in reply from the right is lame jokes and "There Is No Alternative, if TINA isn't a straitjacket I don't know what is.

Britain is a capitalist economy, so is Germany and so is India and Singapore for that matter, each of these countries pay homage to Adam Smith, but the practical application of capitalist thinking is quite different in each country.

The type of Anglo Saxon capitalism practiced here, and in the USA, is known primarily for its short termism and rapaciousness, very different to that of Germany, but then we never look to Germany for any positive examples, despite her being the most successful economy in Europe.

I have a friend who lives in Munich who tells me it's because we're an Island and can't see beyond our shores, except for those things we want to see.

He might well be right.

Germany is the conglomeration of numerous different and smaller countries into a unified whole which created an instant economic powerhouse over night. Measuring our successes versus the German economies, especially after the resulting damages of the World Wars is absolutely not a fair comparison.

Comparing different economies is always like that, a member of the audience during the election debates quizzed Ed Milliband on the contrast between our post recession performance and that of natural resource rich Canada and Australia, if you think about it, any one of the G8 economies could be judged as not being a "fair" comparison with the UK for a variety of reasons.

So the only comparison that produces anything we can use is "best practice", their modus operandi, and using that, on any number of measures, we can learn a lot from Germany, particularly the performance of the German Mittelstand....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mittelstand

"Mittelstand refers to small and medium-sized enterprises in German-speaking countries, especially in Germany, Austria and Switzerland. Economic and business historians have been increasingly giving Mittelstand companies more and more credit for Germany's economic growth since the beginning of the 20th century, often under the name of hidden champions......

Mittelstand companies are "highly focused, achieving unprecedented efficiencies by designing a business model with a razor-thin focus and learning to do the one thing really well"; then to "compensate for their razor-thin focus . . . they diversify internationally and enjoy great economies of scale". Mittelstand companies benefit from Germany's apprenticeship system, which provides highly skilled workers; and there is a "collaborative spirit that generally exists between employer and employees . . . . In the post-reunification recession, it seemed only natural to German workers to offer flexibility on wages and hours in return for greater job security.".

Spot the difference?

There's literally thousands of differences which is my point. Germany is an economic outlier who hasn't developed in the same way to the amalgamation of the country from the remains of the Roman Empire where numerous successful economies were joined together in a resource rich powerhouse and the rebuilding opportunities after the Second World War.

A comparison to France or Spain is much more valid; Denmark even more.

 

[Blue Maverick]

So what do you make of the news that nurses are to have unsocial hours payment take off them a 25% pay cut effectively nice to see where the £8 billion is coming from what a set of cnuts.