crazy davie Posted January 5, 2011 Report Share Posted January 5, 2011 Why can't we just get along ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fellow Traveller Posted January 5, 2011 Report Share Posted January 5, 2011 I had my doubts at times, but it was probably worth skimming through this scary thread just to arrive here: here is where i likely alienate myself from you and a load of other people on this forum... having been a working stiff in three different decades, i can attest to my experience being that some people are so completely and utterly useless and so completely and utterly miserable as workers, that we are better off as a society to pay them to just not mess anything up. it's a trade in its own right... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted January 5, 2011 Report Share Posted January 5, 2011 i would like you to back that up more, please. negative freedoms are also procured by action, and hinge on someone else exercising his or her positive freedoms to do what they please. No, not really. Negative freedoms are rights not to be inhibited from doing things (e.g. freedom of speech is a negative right because it's the right not to have others prevent you from saying what you want to say). Positive freedoms are of debatable existence. They require actual acts by society rather than inaction (e.g. a right to education is an aspirational positive right, as it requires action from society in the formation of education providers. This would only be a negative right in the sense that, e.g. unlike in Afghanistan, there should be no legal impediment to women being allowed to receive an education at school. i don't act towards attaining the negative freedom of not being conked over the head for my food, if they other actor doesn't assert his freedom to conk me over the head. There's no such thing as the positive freedom to conk someone over the head unless you take the Hobbesian view of liberty. next - how are you defining reason? innate ability to synthesize conclusions from perception? are we going deductive? are you equating it with logic? are we adopting Kant's definition? then given your definition of reason, what troubles me is your assertion that the only conclusion (to what question?) based on reason (which you haven't defined) is that nature limits liberty. which "laws of nature?" wee beasties in the grass? gravity? the limitations of our bodies? do you mean nature as in "nasty, brutish and short?" Ah, you're going down the Hobbesian route! No, I'm a Lockean. Reason is the cognitive ability to reach conclusions based on perceptive logic and evidence. The existence and greatest ends of my liberty is best procured by respect for yours. The laws of nature derive from that and the limits nature places on our liberty. For example our liberty of movement does not extend to natural flight because our bodies are incapable. whatever your definition of reason is, you assert that it is innate to humans and that it leads only to a particular conclusion. you follow this by saying... so...there is no one single reason (am i to assume you believe that rationality can be engendered by perception?), but the capacity to adhere to some sort methodology is exclusive to humans and has as its logical conclusion that liberty is in constant strife with nature? you present nothing to back that up. you are just asserting it is so. No. I said that the application of reason could only lead to a conclusion which states that nature limits liberty. I then said that because the cognitive ability of humans is imperfect it approximates the 'nature' and extent of those limits, hence humans disagree about the extent and nature of liberty. you're using baseless assertions (or at least axioms which you have yet to properly qualify) and stating them as universals to make the point that you're not dogmatic. They are not baseless assertions. Of course they are axioms: all statements are to a degree. Dogma requires a lack of openness to change of view in light of evidence and reason. Unless anyone can substantiate the claim that I fit that description, I am not dogmatic. that's not a logical conclusion whatsoever. how does "coercion of all kinds are to be rejected" follow thusly from the broad assertion that precedes it? also, are you saying that reason (here i am assuming you mean deductive reasoning) has as its sole purpose, ridicule? I have concluded, by the application of reason, that coercion is contrary to liberty. It oppresses the ability of an individual to act according to reason (that's the definition of coercion as it is by definition the act of making someone behave in an involuntary way). i was speaking more of the push for normative impulses and borrowing from Nietzsche's critiques of post-enlightenment western science as exhibiting a christianized impulse in looking for solitary and unchallengeable answers. i hold to that though, in that adhering to a particular epistemology (even if one accepts the existence of others) and consequent philosophy still requires some sort of normative axiom. in the current case - reason is innate and reason concludes that we yearn for liberty from the world around us; therefore liberty = good/right; coercion and interference = bad/wrong. adherence to all of any of this still requires that you accept and profess certain axioms and espouse a right and wrong. your concept of one logical conclusion from reason arguably falls under this. that opinion notwithstanding, that the theorists and philosophers you cite and quote are Western and from within a specific time frame, points to a particular cultural bias. I am open to the axiom being disproved, but from all the evidence I see I have yet to see it refuted. In fact, I don't necessarily argue that liberty is good, merely that it is the more logical impulse of humans than coercion. I see a correlation between liberty and personal fulfilment and between coercion and the prevalence of "right answer theorem" and dogma and oppression of ideas. Of course I am open to a Western cultural bias. As an evident scholar of political and philosophical theory, however, you will know that bias does not itself invalidate truthfulness. you probably have, but i was rudely not paying attention. i did what i said i didn't want to do which was assume you were and objectivist and then engage you as such. sorry about that. No problem i actually lived for a fair chunk of time in a part of Oregon in the Pacific Northwest that is fairly well known for its anarchist communities of all shapes and sizes - primitive anarchists, eco-anarchists, the black clad mob who harassed shoppers in the battle of seattle. consequently, i am better versed in a lot of libertarian philosophies than you might think. so, as a market anarchist (or close approximation thereof), i know see what i am dealing with. now is this a theoretical alignment, or do you engage in the fringe market practices? if you don't mind me asking - do you subsistence farm or squat or anything? A theoretical one. It's pretty difficult to give practical application in such a coercive society. In any case market anarchism holds very strongly to the principle of private property rights, and is quite distinct from more commonly found collectivist forms of anarchy. I don't really see the relevance of subsistence farming or squatting in such an anarchy! i said i was being glib... my point is less what libertarians want, and more the consequences thereof. in my experience, infrastructure conducted privately on the free market is no less bureaucratic than public infrastructure. it still takes office workers and paper shufflers making decisions effecting me and due to the size requirements of it being effectual and worth me buying, my choices become limited. i can't get my health insurance through some guy running a policy out his backroom because he can't provide me the coverage i need. i have to go through a major insurance provider to ensure i can get covered. this insurance provider is going to be comprised of countless fat arsed paper shufflers who determine how sick i actually am. if i am lucky, the doctor i go to will accept that insurance provider. if i am even luckier, the hospital he works for will also accept it. if i am unlucky (as i was a year ago), i end up in an emergency room in a hospital that does recognize my insurance, with a doctor who does not, who orders diagnostics that my insurance provider doesn't recognize. free market healthcare is a gem. I'd gathered you were being glib No one here is suggesting that private sector healthcare is perfect. Indeed a true libertarian would fight every bit as much against the bureaucracy in a free-market system as they would against the state bureaucracy. I happen to believe that the state is not justified in providing anything regardless of the merits because it is by nature illegitimate. I also hold that competition in a truly free market system (note privatised capitalist does not necessarily mean free market at all) drives down the cost to the service recipient and improves the quality of the service. well, not with that kind of an attitude you won't! the works don't break without a spanner! True. in the states - the investment banks merged with savings banks because they could and they used the money on deposit to leverage the financing of their "dabbling" in the derivative markets because they could. the states (for example) spent most of the latter half of the 19th century in economic turmoil and it was interventionist measures (like the anti-trust act, creation of the federal reserve, labor standards, food standards) that put this country on an equal footing with the rest of the world. it wasn't until the late seventies that the people of a certain bent asserted stronger influence in government and started aggressive deregulation that we started running at a deficit and started having widespread collapses (savings and loan, the crash in 89). would the collapse have been catastrophic without prior intervention? well, i wouldn't be enjoying the affluence i do without it. it would likely be more of the same boom and bust panics that the US had in the 19th century. (as a side note: if you have not already, do some reading on the upsurge in radicalism in the states around that time. truly fascinating stuff. you seem like you might be interested) in my opinion, the true failing in government intervention in the west has been both the right and left neglecting to adjust infrastructure spending to a post-industrial economy. they've either bought themselves a generation of people who can't work in a modern world or created a caste of undereducated and replaceable low wage workers all in favor of not spending enough on retraining etc. that is not to say it shouldn't have intervened, it just should have done a better job. My attitude towards this is completely different. I take the view that government intervention creates a situation where the success or failures of banks relies less on genuine long-term sustainability and more on who can best lobby the government. If you remove intervention, banks can keep falling on their own swords until they realise actually it's bloody painful. Market failure is absolutely essential to get the markets themselves to learn about what does and doesn't work and what is and isn't sustainable. The intervention of government in this, as in all fields, is at best good at treating the immediate symptoms, but at the expense of not actually getting those in the market itself to change their attitudes. here is where i likely alienate myself from you and a load of other people on this forum... having been a working stiff in three different decades, i can attest to my experience being that some people are so completely and utterly useless and so completely and utterly miserable as workers, that we are better off as a society to pay them to just not mess anything up. it's a trade in its own right... Why should "society" be obliged to pay for them? 1. Woody will keep this short and to the point. I think Marx was correct when he succinctly said: "The way people get their living determines their social outlook." What you're suggesting, for many people, removes choice. 2. In your ideal world there is no level playing field and it strikes me that you really don't give a toss about those who'll you'll have to step over on your way to the bank. 3. Chomsky summed it up nicely and I guess this applies to so-called libertarians; especially those with little or no life experience: "Education is a condition of imposed ignorance!" 1. What choice is removed? Simple question unanswered from earlier. 2. There is no absolutely level playing field in ANY society. I also resent this assertion that I don't give a toss about the well-being of other people less fortunate. It's unhelpful caricature and has no basis in reality. 3. And there's the patronising life experience line again Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaggybunnet Posted January 5, 2011 Report Share Posted January 5, 2011 Oh and interesting to see that The International Monetary fund have said the cuts are rubbish and are going to cause more damage than good. Not in so many words, of course. But what do they know and why let their expert advice stand in the way of attacking the public sector: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2010/CAR060710A.htm that is to do with the euro zone (those that have the Euro as there currency) not us Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted January 5, 2011 Report Share Posted January 5, 2011 that is to do with the euro zone (those that have the Euro as there currency) not us 1. It's to do with Eurozone debt consolidation. 2. It says absolutely nothing about the cuts packages causing more damage than good. If anything it says failure to go at it hammer and tong will cause more damage in the long term... "Delayed or half-hearted fiscal consolidation in countries facing high spreads could trigger a further loss of financial market confidence in the fiscal sustainability of some member states, a spike in risk premiums and a sharp depreciation of the euro" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meister Jag Posted January 5, 2011 Report Share Posted January 5, 2011 that is to do with the euro zone (those that have the Euro as there currency) not us Apologies guys this Torygraph aricle (my late father was an avid reader and an old-school Tory I still take the odd swatch): http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/8046772/IMF-warns-UK-cuts-must-stop-if-growth-slows.html It was this that led me to the IMF link (probably the wrong one though as I was in and out of their site like a Tory taking benefit from a single parent). Woody with apologies, I wasn't trying to patronise; but I hope you never have to face unemployment or have to mix with poor people. Ooops... there I go again. Sorry! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted January 5, 2011 Report Share Posted January 5, 2011 Apologies guys this Torygraph aricle (my late father was an avid reader and an old-school Tory I still take the odd swatch): http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/8046772/IMF-warns-UK-cuts-must-stop-if-growth-slows.html It was this that led me to the IMF link (probably the wrong one though as I was in and out of their site like a Tory taking benefit from a single parent). Woody with apologies, I wasn't trying to patronise; but I hope you never have to face unemployment or have to mix with poor people. Ooops... there I go again. Sorry! The whole article essentially says if growth stops or drops alarmingly, the cuts have to slow down. That's if your gran had balls she's be your grandad sort of stuff. The article even goes on to say: "Mr Blanchard said the UK’s plans would undoubtedly have a negative impact on growth, but did not think they would kill growth entirely and thought the risks of a double-dip recession were "low"." and "He added that the scale of the fiscal consolidation in the UK needed to be bigger than some other major, advanced economies because the initial deficit was also much bigger." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meister Jag Posted January 5, 2011 Report Share Posted January 5, 2011 (edited) The whole article essentially says if growth stops or drops alarmingly, the cuts have to slow down. That's if your gran had balls she's be your grandad sort of stuff. The article even goes on to say: "Mr Blanchard said the UK’s plans would undoubtedly have a negative impact on growth, but did not think they would kill growth entirely and thought the risks of a double-dip recession were "low"." and "He added that the scale of the fiscal consolidation in the UK needed to be bigger than some other major, advanced economies because the initial deficit was also much bigger." Woody, it will come as no surprise that I disagre with what you say. So the UK economy is back on course? Bollo**s! My point is that the deficit cuts are unnecessary and only serve to provide those who take pleasure in the misery of others with the means to an erection. The following is taken from a recent FT article (late Nov last year I think - I've used this in other discussions): "Analysts at Capital Economics estimate that government spending is set to swing from adding 1 per cent to annual UK GDP growth before the cuts to subtracting about 0.2 per cent in coming years. They say UK growth will slow to all but zero by the end of the year, prompting the Bank of England to launch a further round of quantitative easing." The article then goes onto say: "According to Capital Economics, UK growth could fall from around 1.5 per cent this year to just 1 per cent in 2011." That is significantly below the forecast by both the Bank of England and the UK’s Office for Budget Responsibility, raising the prospect that the UK government will struggle to achieve its fiscal targets. Q. If they know this, WTF bother? A. Tory ideology - cut the public sector, union bash and then when there is no one to deliver public services, open up to private enterprise i.e. their mates. With apologies if I've strayed from Siege's original topic - whatever that was Edited January 5, 2011 by Meister Jag Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted January 5, 2011 Report Share Posted January 5, 2011 So the UK economy is back on course? Bollo**s! My point is that the deficit cuts are unnecessary and only serve to give people who enjoy others misery an erection. He didn't say it was back on course. He said that the fiscal consolidation package of cuts and tax rises have reduced the risk of double-dip recession and have put the long-term position (rather more important than short to medium-term growth) back on track. There is absolutely NO evidence that the cuts are motivated by a desire to see people suffer. Taken from a recent FT article (Nov last year - I've used this in other discussions): "Analysts at Capital Economics estimate that government spending is set to swing from adding 1 per cent to annual UK GDP growth before the cuts to subtracting about 0.2 per cent in coming years. They say UK growth will slow to all but zero by the end of the year, prompting the Bank of England to launch a further round of quantitative easing." One set of economists. On the other hand, the IFS, IMF and OBR all predict sluggish but stable growth. The article then goes onto say: "According to Capital Economics, UK growth could fall from around 1.5 per cent this year to just 1 per cent in 2011." That is significantly below the forecast by both the Bank of England and the UK’s Office for Budget Responsibility, raising the prospect that the UK government will struggle to achieve its fiscal targets. Even if they don't reach their fiscal targets, it would be better that the economy grows slowly and that the foundations below it are more secure than to continue to pump money into it now and defer and increase the problem for later. That's the cut and thrust of the IMF's view and most other independent analysts. High growth is less important than long-term sustainability. Q. If they know this, WTF bother? A. Tory ideology - cut the public sector, union bash and then when there is no one to deliver public services, open up to private enterprise i.e. their mates. It's not Tory ideology. If these cuts were truly driven out of a desire to substantially cut the public sector, bash the unions and hand out contracts to their mates in the private sector, they would be a hell of a lot deeper than they are. People don't seem to realise that these cuts are absolutely tiny. They bring public spending in real terms back to 2007 levels and in cash terms public spending will still RISE by the end of the parliament. If they were fuelled by ideological desire the cuts would be at least double, if not treble what they actually are. With apologies if I've strayed from Siege's original topic - whatever that was It was never going to stay on course anyway... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meister Jag Posted January 5, 2011 Report Share Posted January 5, 2011 Woody, as ever, I think you’re talking out of a text book. Here are three reasons why the deficit cuts are unnecessary and, I think, ideologically driven. The coalition could have taxed more and cut less There was an alternative to George Osborne's £81bn spending cuts: higher taxes on the richest in our society. The Chancellor has chosen to reduce the deficit through a 59:41 ratio of spending cuts to tax rises in 2010/2011 - rising to 77:23 by 2015/2016. Very fair indeed… A higher level of tax rises on top earners would have enabled a more progressive programme of fiscal consolidation - the cuts are, by any measure, regressive. The coalition could have raised more revenue through a tax on land value - oh, erm, … 69 per cent of which is owned by just 0.6 per cent of the population. A genuine crackdown on the £25bn lost each year through tax avoidance; a tougher, not a weaker, bank levy; and a higher, not lower, corporation tax. The decision to rely on punitive spending cuts to reduce the deficit was a political choice, not an economic necessity. So again, not very fair… Spending cuts harm the economy more than tax rises You’ll hopefully accept that economists are agreed that the government's spending cuts will hit growth harder than tax rises would. My earlier posts refer and The Office for Budget Responsibility's own multipliers show that the cuts will reduce growth by significantly more than the coalition's tax rises. Fair? Nope, not in any way… The cuts are permanent, not temporary The Prime Minister's insistence that this is the only way reveals an ideological attachment to the small state that you clearly get off on and to low levels of public spending. The result will be permanently shrunken public services. And for many on the right, this is just the beginning of their long war against the active state. When analysed, the cuts will reduce public spending from 47.3 per cent of GDP in 2010/2011 to 39.8 per cent in 2015/2016 – equivalent to reductions made by Margaret Thatcher between 1979 and 1990. But where is the evidence of fairness and how can you not say that this is ideologically driven. This is the Tories returning to demolish that which they fear i.e a society that actually looks after and cares for its citizens – to include the poor, the sick and pensioners. Fair? No fu**ing way… this is the Tories returning to type and form. I don’t expect agreement; just acceptance that the country is in the grip of monsters! I'll close by returning to a theme that clearly tiles you and a wee quote from the great architect: "And so in capitalist society we have a democracy that is curtailed, wretched, false, a democracy only for the rich, for the minority. The dictatorship of the proletariat, the period of transition to communism, will for the first time create democracy for the people, for the majority, along with the necessary suppression of the exploiters, of the minority." Read it and rejoice - salvation and emancipation is at hand!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted January 5, 2011 Report Share Posted January 5, 2011 Woody, as ever, I think you’re talking out of a text book. Here are three reasons why the deficit cuts are unnecessary and, I think, ideologically driven. I'm not talking out of a textbook. The reality is that higher taxes a) aren't enough and don't necessarily bring in more revenue. The coalition could have taxed more and cut less There was an alternative to George Osborne's £81bn spending cuts: higher taxes on the richest in our society. The Chancellor has chosen to reduce the deficit through a 59:41 ratio of spending cuts to tax rises in 2010/2011 - rising to 77:23 by 2015/2016. Very fair indeed… A higher level of tax rises on top earners would have enabled a more progressive programme of fiscal consolidation - the cuts are, by any measure, regressive. The coalition could have raised more revenue through a tax on land value - oh, erm, … 69 per cent of which is owned by just 0.6 per cent of the population. A genuine crackdown on the £25bn lost each year through tax avoidance; a tougher, not a weaker, bank levy; and a higher, not lower, corporation tax. The decision to rely on punitive spending cuts to reduce the deficit was a political choice, not an economic necessity. So again, not very fair… Rubbish. Higher tax rates yield lower overall tax receipts. The 50% income tax rate alone costs us several billion pounds per year because it causes more tax avoidance. The higher the rate at which you tax the rich, the greater the incentive for them to arrange their affairs (perfectly legitimately) to avoid it. Tax law is a ******* nightmare and it is next to impossible to close all the loopholes without opening others. Tax advisers are and always will be several steps ahead of HMRC. Land value taxes are profoundly unfair and completely arbitrary. It also punishes people who are asset rich but cash poor. The bank levy put in place by the Coalition was more substantial than the one put in place by Labour. It's also a huge red herring as you are robbing Peter to pay Paul. Taking money out of the banks just as they're starting to recover makes them less competitive than their foreign counterparts, and also devalues them to the taxpayer, who just happens to own a huge wedge of them. All the myths about the Robin Hood tax getting rid of the need for cuts doesn't stand up to scrutiny as people base the likely yields on the profits they were making pre-crisis. Encouraging banks to behave like they did before in order to get a big wedge out of them would be economically illiterate and short-termist. Higher corporation tax reduces overall yield as companies then (perfectly legitimately) arrange their affairs to avoid it, or leave the country outright. If you want a proper economic recovery you leave business the **** alone and don't tax it through the nose. They already foot the bill of their input VAT, the obscene fuel costs of which fuel duty and VAT comprise more than 70%, employer's NI contributions and more besides. Spending cuts harm the economy more than tax rises You’ll hopefully accept that economists are agreed that the government's spending cuts will hit growth harder than tax rises would. My earlier posts refer and The Office for Budget Responsibility's own multipliers show that the cuts will reduce growth by significantly more than the coalition's tax rises. Fair? Nope, not in any way… Economists are not agreed on that. You are guilty of chronic short-termism. Obviously lots of cuts are going to have more effect on growth than relatively small tax rises. Huge tax rises would stifle growth far more than cuts, especially in the long-term. The fundamental problem which you willfully ignore is that the price of spending more to get an extra 1-2% growth is to make the structural problems of the public finances worse. I cannot stress enough that the cuts that are being made only take public spending back to 2007 levels, and even then they are only going to REDUCE THE RATE AT WHICH WE LOSE MONEY EVERY YEAR. These cuts are ABSOLUTELY TINY and people are throwing their toys out the pram over an unavoidably difficult period. The cuts are permanent, not temporary The Prime Minister's insistence that this is the only way reveals an ideological attachment to the small state that you clearly get off on and to low levels of public spending. No, his insistence that this is the only credible plan reveals pragmatism and realism. If anything your attachment to high taxes and high public spending is ideological. It's funny how it's always the other guy that's ideological and you that's not, eh? The result will be permanently shrunken public services. There is absolutely no evidence for this whatsoever. And for many on the right, this is just the beginning of their long war against the active state. When analysed, the cuts will reduce public spending from 47.3 per cent of GDP in 2010/2011 to 39.8 per cent in 2015/2016 – equivalent to reductions made by Margaret Thatcher between 1979 and 1990. That decrease is absolutely tiny. Public spending as a percentage of GDP will be HIGHER than in 2007 if you want to use that figure. I don't recall people rioting on the streets and complaining that the public sector was too small in 2007... But where is the evidence of fairness and how can you not say that this is ideologically driven. This is the Tories returning to demolish that which they fear i.e a society that actually looks after and cares for its citizens – to include the poor, the sick and pensioners. Fair? No fu**ing way… this is the Tories returning to type and form. This is just all flatulence and no end product. You have absolutely no evidence that these cuts are driven by small state ideology. As someone who believes that the state should be shrunk by at least 4 or 5 times as much as the Coalition are doing, I can assure you this is minor tinking at the edges. They are going to INCREASE spending in cash terms and revert it MERELY to 2007 in real terms. How you can possibly say that is ideological when it's virtually within the margin of error for every single year c.f. public spending as a % of GDP since 1950. I don’t expect agreement; just acceptance that the country is in the grip of monsters! Statist, tax and spend monsters, some of which aren't quite as bad as others. I'll close by returning to a theme that clearly tiles you and a wee quote from the great architect: "And so in capitalist society we have a democracy that is curtailed, wretched, false, a democracy only for the rich, for the minority. The dictatorship of the proletariat, the period of transition to communism, will for the first time create democracy for the people, for the majority, along with the necessary suppression of the exploiters, of the minority." Read it and rejoice - salvation and emancipation is at hand!! If I may paraphrase your good self: "Meister Jag, as ever, I think you’re talking out of a text book." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackpool Jags Posted January 5, 2011 Report Share Posted January 5, 2011 For those who won't be going to Dunfermline on March 26th, let's see you down in London on the anti-Cuts demo, if you believe in fairness. Let's smash the ConDems outta sight. This is the beginning. http://action.unison.org.uk/page/content/march/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragon Posted January 5, 2011 Report Share Posted January 5, 2011 People don't seem to realise that these cuts are absolutely tiny. Really? So people losing their jobs and losing their homes and other things they worked hard for years for is tiny then! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaggybunnet Posted January 5, 2011 Report Share Posted January 5, 2011 For those who won't be going to Dunfermline on March 26th, let's see you down in London on the anti-Cuts demo, if you believe in fairness. Let's smash the ConDems outta sight. This is the beginning. http://action.unison.org.uk/page/content/march/ yeah, lets all go to london and waste millions in policing and the damage that will be caused by idiots who cant see past there own nose, these cuts have to happen, thats a fact which ever party was in and labour (who caused most of this) are happy to sit back and snipe instead of helping....but thats labour so what do you expect Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaggybunnet Posted January 5, 2011 Report Share Posted January 5, 2011 Really? So people losing their jobs and losing their homes and other things they worked hard for years for is tiny then! in the big picture yes, otherwise a few years down the line we will ALL be really stuffed not nice but thats life after labour. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragon Posted January 5, 2011 Report Share Posted January 5, 2011 in the big picture yes, otherwise a few years down the line we will ALL be really stuffed not nice but thats life after labour. You mean the ConDems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted January 5, 2011 Report Share Posted January 5, 2011 Really? So people losing their jobs and losing their homes and other things they worked hard for years for is tiny then! That wasn't what I said. In the grander scheme of things, though, a 1 million rise in short-term unemployment following one of the biggest recessions in peacetime history really isn't that significant. The choice is a spike in unemployment 12 months either side of now or sustained unemployment later when the government debt spirals out of control and they have to put the begging bowl out to the IMF. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meister Jag Posted January 5, 2011 Report Share Posted January 5, 2011 If I may paraphrase your good self: "Meister Jag, as ever, I think you’re talking out of a text book." I think you're just hiding from the truth Woody, you need to me a nice left-wing girl; bet she'd quickly change your tune . But the fact remains that all deficit cuts are avoidable. By concentrating on tax alone we could save a small fortune - but maybe you don't like to bite the hand that might eventually feed you. Meryn King referred to this argument as being "persuasive" - high praise indeed from someone who should have been advising the last government to do more to regulate the bankers; but maybe he's feeling a little guilty Addressing the ‘tax gap’ is a vital part of tackling the deficit. Figures produced by the Tax Justice Network show that £25 billion is lost annually in tax avoidance and a further £70 billion in tax evasion by large companies and wealthy individuals. In addition, an additional £26 billion is going uncollected. Therefore, it is estimated that the total annual tax gap is over £120 billion (more than three-quarters of the annual deficit!). It is not just unions that are calculating this; leaked Treasury documents in 2006 estimated the tax gap at between £97 and £150 billion. Sometimes I don't know why I bother, you'll just tell me that I'm talking sh**e! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragon Posted January 5, 2011 Report Share Posted January 5, 2011 That wasn't what I said. In the grander scheme of things, though, a 1 million rise in short-term unemployment following one of the biggest recessions in peacetime history really isn't that significant. The choice is a spike in unemployment 12 months either side of now or sustained unemployment later when the government debt spirals out of control and they have to put the begging bowl out to the IMF. So, what is the length of this short-term unemployment then? And, what about your "respect for the life, liberty and property of" the 1 million made unemployed and who could ultimately lose their homes, etc, they have spent years getting. I suppose they just start over again and hope they don't die or become ill before they can enjoy their "life, liberty and property" again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackpool Jags Posted January 5, 2011 Report Share Posted January 5, 2011 yeah, lets all go to london and waste millions in policing and the damage that will be caused by idiots who cant see past there own nose, these cuts have to happen, thats a fact which ever party was in and labour (who caused most of this) are happy to sit back and snipe instead of helping....but thats labour so what do you expect Your tenacity is admirable in a zany kinda way, JB. Still, I can't help likening you to this gritty fellow: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted January 5, 2011 Report Share Posted January 5, 2011 I think you're just hiding from the truth Woody, you need to me a nice left-wing girl; bet she'd quickly change your tune I have never met a right wing woman. Shame really. But the fact remains that all deficit cuts are avoidable. But the consequences would be so utterly ridiculous that it shouldn't be taken seriously. By concentrating on tax alone we could save a small fortune - but maybe you don't like to bite the hand that might eventually feed you. By concentrating on tax alone you would force all wealth creators abroad, stifle business' ability to grow and piss off the population when a trade deficit balloons. Meryn King referred to this argument as being "persuasive" - high praise indeed from someone who should have been advising the last government to do more to regulate the bankers; but maybe he's feeling a little guilty Mervyn King is an economically illiterate moron who doesn't know his arse from his elbow. Addressing the ‘tax gap’ is a vital part of tackling the deficit. Figures produced by the Tax Justice Network show that £25 billion is lost annually in tax avoidance and a further £70 billion in tax evasion by large companies and wealthy individuals. Tax avoidance is virtually impossible to close down. By closing one loophole you create another, such as is the nature of the hideously complex tax law. Some tax avoidance is DELIBERATE: indeed government often create tax avoidance schemes to encourage certain types of behaviour (see ISAs and employee registered pension schemes as prime examples). Tax collection has always and will always be chronically inefficient. Saying you can improve tax collection is like saying you can cut government waste by billions. It's a nice idea in theory but in practice it just doesn't work. In addition, an additional £26 billion is going uncollected. Therefore, it is estimated that the total annual tax gap is over £120 billion (more than three-quarters of the annual deficit!). It is not just unions that are calculating this; leaked Treasury documents in 2006 estimated the tax gap at between £97 and £150 billion. And if tax collection was so horrifically inefficient under a Labour Government, what makes you think that the Coalition can suddenly wave a magic wand and close all the gaps? When a gap is being estimated between two such huge figures it rather suggests that a ) the tax system is simply too complicated b ) they have been concocted using artistic licence c ) it's such a meaningless hypothetical as to be of no practical tangible use. Sometimes I don't know why I bother, you'll just tell me that I'm talking sh**e! Because you are! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meister Jag Posted January 5, 2011 Report Share Posted January 5, 2011 Sorry Woody re your text book jibe, I forgot to add this to my last offering - Here are a few text books to be going on with: Das Kapital and Wages, Prices and Profit, which should be issued to all government ministers as the definitive guides to the causes of capitalism in crisis; they will give them an understanding of the inherent exploitative nature and instability of an economic system that is literally putting thousands of people on the dole queue each month, making many homeless and slowing down growth. I'd then suggest that you then read Robert Owen's work on co-operatives, Antonio Gramsci's prison writings on winning the battle of ideas, Ernest Mandel's Late Capitalism and Ralph Miliband's Socialism for a Sceptical Age. Just a few text books to be going on with... Oh and happy reading! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted January 5, 2011 Report Share Posted January 5, 2011 So, what is the length of this short-term unemployment then? It should gradually decrease as the economy recovers. Slowly but steadily. And, what about your "respect for the life, liberty and property of" the 1 million made unemployed and who could ultimately lose their homes, etc, they have spent years getting. Their life, liberty and property aren't being violated by government cuts. No one is inherently entitled to a job. They must earn it. No one is inherently entitled to a house. They must earn it and pay for it (if you have a mortgage, you have not yet earned it... that's the whole point of a security on a loan). I suppose they just start over again and hope they don't die or become ill before they can enjoy their "life, liberty and property" again. They shouldn't expect everything to be handed to them on a plate by the taxpayer. The world has finite resources and sometimes people have to suffer because there simply isn't the money to sustain their lifestyle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meister Jag Posted January 6, 2011 Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 (edited) And if tax collection was so horrifically inefficient under a Labour Government, what makes you think that the Coalition can suddenly wave a magic wand and close all the gaps? When a gap is being estimated between two such huge figures it rather suggests that a ) the tax system is simply too complicated b ) they have been concocted using artistic licence c ) it's such a meaningless hypothetical as to be of no practical tangible use. How about investing in civil servants to collect the tax; or is that toooo zany? Because you are! What was it I said about resorting to Ad hominem abuse. Are the naughty Commies getting to you?[/b] Edited January 6, 2011 by Meister Jag Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted January 6, 2011 Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 Sorry Woody re your text book jibe, I forgot to add this to my last offering - Here are a few text books to be going on with: Das Kapital and Wages, Prices and Profit, which should be issued to all government ministers as the definitive guides to the causes of capitalism in crisis; they will give them an understanding of the inherent exploitative nature and instability of an economic system that is literally putting thousands of people on the dole queue each month, making many homeless and slowing down growth. I'd then suggest that you then read Robert Owen's work on co-operatives, Antonio Gramsci's prison writings on winning the battle of ideas, Ernest Mandel's Late Capitalism and Ralph Miliband's Socialism for a Sceptical Age. Just a few text books to be going on with... Oh and happy reading! For someone who claims to be a man of the world and open minded, you're tremendously dogmatic. I'd suggest a swatch of Murray Rothbard's work. Three publications I found particularly insightful are: The Ethics of Liberty - he destroys the legitimacy of state Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature - he examines the reality of state-led attempts to engineer equality inevitably leading to coercion and consolidation of elites Perhaps most pertinently in today's environment, The Mystery of Banking - in 1983 he shows huge foresight predicting that state-assisted fractional-reserve-banking has devastating effects on the populus And a cursory glance of the following 3 works wouldn't go a miss either: Milton Friedman - Capitalism and Freedom Friedrich Hayek - The Road to Serfdom Adam Smith - The Wealth of Nations Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.