Some of the effects of Tory party policys

We don't have a level playing field and capitalism isn't sustainable because of the capital absorption problem. The engine of capitalism is accumulation, what is accumulated grows bigger which means effectively larger and larger amounts of capital must find suitable investment opportunities. Do you want every surface of the globe concreted over, eventual under-consumption problems and every other social, bio and private sphere of life marketised only to find that it will still crash under the weight of its own contradictions.

Companies already have "boosted" profits, at the moment they are sitting on a $300 trillion surplus that they can't find investment for in productive areas of the economy.

Any democracy worth its salt has to acknowledge economic democracy - who can buy what and when is no business of the states. This extends to the wider issue of capitalism. If an individual or organisation can see a return on an investment it should be unimpeded in its pursuit of that return (provided there is a level playing field for all). The problem that the country faces is a dearth of investment opportunities which will deliver a suitable reward for the risk these banks are being asked to take.

For example, if HS2 was capable of providing a decent return on investment (as opposed to being a colossal white elephant waiting to happen) there would be banks and private investors queuing around the block for a piece of the action and the governments money wouldn't be necessary.

With government spending at around 47% of GDP, and taxation not being too far from that point, it isn't hard to find some way of boosting profits for companies leading, in turn, to more investment opportunities... leading, in turn, to more investment... leading, in turn, to more jobs...

I get fed up saying it but taxation (especially that on businesses and the poor) is unacceptably high.

You don't have to respond Flatpack, no one forces you.

Lord Freud, "which came first, the supply or the demand ? Food from a food bank ? the supply ? is a free good, and by definition there is an almost infinite demand for a free good." There, again, see these people make their judgements about others based on their belief that everyone is like them, avaricious. Except the poor are not just greedy, they are lazy.

An MP asked Freud if the Job centre was issuing vouchers, to which he said that the job centres were encouraged to make links with food banks. So it would seem that the delays, the sanctions and the mistakes are part of some well thought plan. Lets not use tax payers money to keep people when they find themselves down on their luck, lets make tax payers dig deeper and give their neighbours food, whilst we siphon off expenses, freebies, give welfare to corporations, wage wars and drink subsidised gin whilst we plan our £10,000 hike in salary.

And this is not a single party issue, Freud was hired by Blair to produce a white paper on welfare reform. So, what to do?

ttosca

So how it is that this thread has again been diverted from discussing the harmful effects of the Tory's sociopathic policies?

Why not just create another 15 threads, like normal?

I'm not sure the word 'discuss' covers what you do.

Ok, i'm genuinely interested in how you see this brave new world which Ttosca calls 'democratic socialism' would work.

So...correct me if I am wrong but you believe that the state is inherently corrupt. And that despite one person one vote that the resulting government only serves a narrow interest. Correct?

If so how would the new democratic socialism work? In other words, how would decisions be made? What changes are you suggesting need changing to business ownership? If I start off say a takeaway business and grow it into a big chain of takeaway businesses, who owns/manages it? Me or the state?

Picking up Ttosca's point on producing goods on the basis of meeting human need first. Who decides that and how? So for example if I don't like Brocolli, who decides that is more important than chocolate? And if I've worked and earned £x. And I just want to have a fun time and spend most of it on rubber dog shit, in a democratic society, who decides I cannot buy it because it fails the 'human need' test?

I am not arguing for a command economy and a large state. The state itself is not democratic. Historically we have always struggled for control of the state. Under feudalism the state was not headed by an elected individual but by someone who claimed to have the divine right to rule.

Now we have governments made up of elected individuals that serve the class interests of those who pay the bills and those who pay the piper call the tune. And for those of you who think that is the tax payer, you are duped.

The state is corrupt, serving the interests of those with property, through laws and institutions that ensure that those without stay without.

I don't think we need a large state or even huge state welfare, what is needed are changes to property relations (I'm not suggesting you share your bathroom) we need changes to way in which businesses are owned and managed. Democracy needs to start from the ground up. We need to unpick the link between large finance capital and productive business, so that productive capital isn't subordinated to finance. Right now small businesses are still being denied investment or lending whilst the banks favour monopoly. That isn't a free market, that is a rigged market. And the capital flows in one direction, enclosing public and private life, inclusion into this necessitates the exclusion of others.

niceguy2
Mini, i've no clue what you are arguing for anymore. Are you suggesting a command economy like Korea is a good thing? Because already I agree that a pure private economy is a bad thing.

She is arguing for a communist command economy. As usual. Some people just won't learn.

Mini, i've no clue what you are arguing for anymore. Are you suggesting a command economy like Korea is a good thing? Because already I agree that a pure private economy is a bad thing.

The world is not black & white. That's why too much of any type of economy is bad. The 'best' is a mix of both.

As for the rich packing their bags and leaving, that's just foolishness. The rich tend to take their riches with them. Unless you are now going to promote state legalised theft?

In the interests of democracy I wouldn't ask them to get out their cheque book, I would request they pack their bags.

Are you suggesting that the wealthy should be chucked out of the country... in the name of democracy?

Wasn't that tried in Zimbabwe and Uganda? Remind me again how that turned out... Must have been the Bilderbergers, the Neo-Cons and probably even the Freemasons who deliberately trashed those countries economies pour encourager les autres.

No incorrect.

We can have no state spending on welfare, health and education and a completely liberal economy, much as we did in the 18th and 19th century. We could then return to business as normal with people dying of preventable disease, children dying in childhood, a return of malnutrition and starvation. Scameron et al could all saunter out and wag their finger at the naughty immoral poor. oops, isn't that what they want.

Or we could have a complete command economy, as is the case in Korea.

There is no golden rule that says we must have state spending and a private sector.

Or we could just try something radically different. The struggle to control the state is historic with one class always having the odds stacked in their favour. In the interests of democracy I wouldn't ask them to get out their cheque book, I would request they pack their bags.

OK, let's try to agree upon this. The state gets it's money from taxing the private sector. The private sector needs the state to spend money on various things like healthcare, police, defence, education, roads etc etc. Things which left to market forces alone wouldn't be a good idea.

The question is of balance. And there has to be a balance. The state cannot exist without the private sector and it would be pretty much anarchy without the state.

We'll probably disagree where the balancing point is but there has to be one correct?

What a Tory/Labour govt are in reality doing is moving the point a cm to the left or right depending on who is in power.

But my main point as I said before is that if the private sector does badly then it follows that the public sector also ends up suffering.

I don't know where to start with you two either !

Here's a link

If you listen to Professor Mariana Mazzucato approximately half way through that lecture (58 mins) it will explain how the state underpins the free market through state investment into R&D, subsidies and beneficial tax regimes. She isn't on the left, just in case you think its biased. Her argument is that the value is created through investment but the extraction of value goes to the private sector.

speri.dept.shef.ac.uk/2013/01/15/myth-free-market-capitalism-rest/

You might also find this interesting, again not a left source.
www.forbes.com/sites/johntharvey/2011/04/29/why-the-private-sector-needs-the-government-to-spend-money/

Government spending after 1945 drove huge increases in GDP, drove down the debt to GDP because of how the money was invested (rather than just spent on war) & drove huge growth in the private sector despite progressive taxation.

Erm...i'm not sure how to respond to Mini's last sentence. Where do I start?

If you'd have said:

"...rather that the state influences the private sector" then I'd be with you.

"It isn't that the private sector supports government spending, rather that the state supports the private sector"

Oh dear. When did you fall through the economic looking glass exactly?

High levels of public sector employment is fine as long as the private sector can sustain those jobs. Roughly half of our jobs nowadays seem to be public sector, it means the private sector have to fund those jobs somehow

Interesting point but arse about face

47% of GDP is government spending. Even under neo-liberalism and despite calls for less government, the private sector leans on the government to spend. Less government spending shrinks public sector investment. Corporate welfare sits in direct contradiction to the idea of a small state and less spending. So what is actually happening is a call for corporate welfare, scrapping of regulations, checks & balances and a complete marketisation of human welfare, be in health, education and welfare.

It isn't that the private sector supports government spending, rather that the state supports the private sector.

High levels of public sector employment is fine as long as the private sector can sustain those jobs. Roughly half of our jobs nowadays seem to be public sector, it means the private sector have to fund those jobs somehow.

And given the dire straits of the economy, it's not really a surprise that right now we can't sustain those jobs. It's only logical that if the economy is bad and tax receipts collapse then the public sector which afterall is part of the economy also is affected. And when times are good, the opposite should also ring true as well.

What's wrong is when the public sector somehow think they should be immune from what's going on around them. That's simply not realistic.

I thought that having high levels of public sector employment did work. It kept the economy buoyant and also encouraged investment and employment in the private sector due to individual spending ability. It wasn't the Labour government's effort to have as many people in work as possible that caused the global recession and the cuts in the public sector are damaging the Coalition's fairly poor efforts at getting the UK out of recession, when so many other countries are recovering (obviously not including Greece etc). Now everyone's frightened to spend money because there's no job confidence.

What do you mean by "investing in the economy and putting people back to work"? Making up public sector jobs? Labour already tried that, it didn't work. We need to encourage private sector investment.

There's no point in keeping people in jobs that are no longer needed just to keep them off the unemployed figures. Liverpool MPs should be trying to attract investment into the area.

I think you are mistaking me asking where the money comes from as defending the coalition.

As for policies, we've been round this merry go round so many times. You will say evil tory scum repeatedly whilst cut & pasting lots of articles in case I cannot click on a link. I will ask you ok...what would you do instead and where the money would come from?

You will brand me a right wing fascist for asking such a question and cut & paste some more articles on how it's all the rich bankers fault and life was all tickety boo before they destroyed the universe with their reckless gambling. A point even if it were true is neither here nor there anymore.

And because its Merseyside no one can claim these people can move where there is cheaper housing. Great isn't it. Perhaps that is why it falls on deaf ears and those on the right are strangely silent.

The policy is short sighted as are other Tory policies, unless of course playing musical houses is part of some plan to kick start the economy! Maybe there is some logic in it. Make group A homeless, move in group B, Group B buy new white goods and default on rent, move in group C......

In what way is it beneficial to pay out of work benefits instead of wages TabithaStephens?

How would making even more people redundant benefit Liverpool ?