BS: Nasty Thatcher rightly calls Palin nuts?

Subject: RE: BS: Nasty Thatcher rightly calls Palin nuts?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 17 Jun 11 - 03:06 AM

No, I don't get that. It sounds as if it might be interesting. Where does it come from and how and why?

Subject: RE: BS: Nasty Thatcher rightly calls Palin nuts?
From: Musket
Date: 17 Jun 11 - 03:51 AM

Comparing us to the Arab spring?

Bridge notes that it is his "suggestion" we are near that point. Methinks it may be his desire instead. We have a free society where you can whinge to your heart's content and call people with an opposite view "the enemy." Yet in reality, the loudest noise in suburbia is the sound of butter being scraped onto crumpets.

On a serious note, we seem to laud the Arab spring because it is their desire to have a system closer to our own. The system you make a living out of whilst pointing out its failings, both real and sometimes contrived.

I agree that capitalism and democracy don't necessarily sit together, but there again neither do a bowl of custard and an iPad. They are different things but both are in my kitchen and both attracted my attention last night. Sorry, but democracy and capitalism are not different philosophies, they are two very different "things" that can coexist in the same way my iPad will carry on working regardless of whether I have finished the custard.

In fact, although short term capitalism can exist in any political environment, sustained capitalism requires free will and choice by consumers, and that exists in a democracy rather than in a dictatorship where you are told what to think. China tries with varying degrees of success to float capitalism without democracy, but if you can't trust your people politically, is is also difficult to trust them as customers.

Th*tcher felt capitalism will form its own society. But there again, her society was doing ok. Her husband was breaking sanctions in South Africa during the '70s and '80s, and her son was feeding dictators arms in other African states.

Luckily, for us, democracy existed even in her own party. There again, I look for the public service aspect in politicians rather than the wish to thrust their views on you. Hence my concern over Bridge pointing out you are an enemy if you disagree with him. Stand for office then mate. Losing your deposit isn't earth shattering and as a businessman, your own bit of capitalism will soon mend things for you afterwards.

Subject: RE: BS: Nasty Thatcher rightly calls Palin nuts?
From: Stu
Date: 17 Jun 11 - 04:54 AM

"In fact, although short term capitalism can exist in any political environment, sustained capitalism requires free will and choice by consumers"

I don't agree. China is building a very successful capitalist economy because it can exploit the mass of cheap labour at it's disposal whose work conditions are unregulated, it has an emerging economic middle and upper class that can buy the goods as well as a huge and very aggressive export market. With western compliance the Chinese Communist Party look as strong as ever and are still torturing, imprisoning and killing their citizens at will and with utter impunity. The west is complicit in this abominable free-for-all and demonstrates the sort of rank hypocrisy that leaves many stuck for words as our countries en-masse suck up onto the arse of China. For instance, there have been several days of riots in Guangdong Province (and in Mongolia on a separate issue) over police interaction with a migrant worker; this has not been reported in the mainstream British media except for tiny on-at-3-in-the-morning reports (where I saw it). Why? Because at this point in time a major political upheaval in China is going to balls up everyone's cashfest. Turning China's citizens into consumers won't result in some 'Asian Spring'; it could be happening now and no-one gives a fuck. Keep producing those cheapo goods and shut up!*

Of course democracy and capitalism are different 'things' and that was my point (albeit badly made on a re-reading of my original post. One's a political system and one an economic one), but here in the civilised west our governments use capitalism as the only economic system of choice, and this idea is to be exported throughout the world under the guise of spreading democracy. This is about opening new markets and competing for resources, not the freedom of individuals; Iraq is now home to christ knows how many US companies intent on exploiting the aftermath of war. That was was never fought for democracy, it was fought for capitalism.

One of Thatcher's aims was to turn us into consumers rather than citizens, and we fell for it hook, line and sinker. Don was right in that the Unions had way too much power and were fucking up our manufacturing base, but then Thatcher use their recalcitrance as an excuse to put thousands of viable business on the scrapheap and destroy the manufacturing base remaining. We need to become citizens again, to make our voices heard and not be cowed by the promise of limitless growth and endless consumer choice; that is the capitalist lie and only via a responsible, citizen-centric socially democratic political system can the excesses of recent years be avoided.

*Of course, this rank hypocrisy comes down to personal level too, as the computer I'm typing this on was made in China, as was my phone, perhaps my telly (components certainly will be) and pretty much everything else. These computers used to be made in Ireland.

Subject: RE: BS: Nasty Thatcher rightly calls Palin nuts?
From: Musket
Date: 17 Jun 11 - 12:04 PM

Aye, my shiny new Mac says "designed in California" in larger print than the bit about being made in China. Mind you, it may be designed in California, but by a Geordie, but I digress....

Perhaps I should have quantified short term better? I don't have a crystal ball sadly but if I did, I would say that China has to turn its own people into consumers and not just the city slickers. For that, a democracy of free thinking empowered individuals is needed. Why? Because the rest of the world spent so long being amazed that China was waking up and joining the international throng that we all overlooked that we were being fucked over by them. There is no such thing as free trade and before long, there will have to be a quid quo pro of trade in both directions if China is to carry on manufacturing for the rest of the world. If they lose export trade, they then need to address a potentially huge domestic market, but poor peasants don't make good consumers.

Already in the Western world, luxury goods are down long term and China is slowly suffering. Yes, their economy grows still, but not at the exponential rate it was doing pre 2008.

The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that although democracy and capitalism are different things, (and sorry about my rather flippant example) there is a serendipity which can lead to the third pillar, a sustainable social program.

Mind you, the key to all that is constant growth, and then we bring the planet resource into play..........

Subject: RE: BS: Nasty Thatcher rightly calls Palin nuts?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Jun 11 - 02:30 PM

"Constant growth" = "inevitable disaster".

Subject: RE: BS: Nasty Thatcher rightly calls Palin nuts?
From: Stu
Date: 18 Jun 11 - 05:17 AM

Agreed. Constant growth is a capitalists wet dream based on unsustainability and exploitation.

Subject: RE: BS: Nasty Thatcher rightly calls Palin nuts?
From: Musket
Date: 18 Jun 11 - 07:00 AM

Hence I mentioned the planet...

Adam Smith had what he considered the answers for his time. Of course, capitalism does require constant growth, and the boom bust effects are natures way of telling us this. If the resource was infinite, capitalism could sustain society. As there is a finite resource, every winner needs a loser, hence the fluctuations.

Mind you, the alternative to capitalism does require a form of capitalism, albeit a stage managed one. That is unsustainable too. Me? Until somebody writes a different blueprint that is accepted through democratic means, I'll take my chances on taxes funding a social program. Taxes from profits and income. Profit and income from capitalism.

These days, I am straddling both public and private sector. Interestingly, I note my tax on my private sector income just about matches the top of the ticket on the small bit of work I do for a government body in the public sector. I consider myself neither an asset nor a liability. As I appear not to be a professional either, it's a good job I can down a pint faster than anybody who challenges me, otherwise I really would be worthless....

Subject: RE: BS: Nasty Thatcher rightly calls Palin nuts?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 18 Jun 11 - 08:53 AM

""Don was right in that the Unions had way too much power and were fucking up our manufacturing base, but then Thatcher use their recalcitrance as an excuse to put thousands of viable business on the scrapheap and destroy the manufacturing base remaining.""

Interestingly, a small amount of research on the internet turns up the FACT that the UK is currently the seventh largest manufacturing nation on the planet, which, given the size of our population is pretty good.

It seems that, while the Chinese are selling us cheap mass produced consumer goods, we have the bulk of the market for the high end goods which we now manufacture and sell to the Chinese and almost everyone else.

Surprised the hell out of me.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Nasty Thatcher rightly calls Palin nuts?
From: Musket
Date: 18 Jun 11 - 10:51 AM

Its a fact Don, yes.

But like all facts involving statistics, it can be subjective.

Yes, it is good, and yes, it brings money in. However...

Picture this; I joined a company in the '80s which had a machine shop and employed 28 people as turners, machine setters etc. Within six years, we were turning out and selling over ten times the amount of product and our reject rate meant we went from 84% of raw material turned into product up to 98% through better machining and analysis of billet. We did it by investing in CNC machining. Whilst we luckily never had to make anybody redundant, we managed through retirement, moving on and not replacing, to get that down to seven men from the original 28.

Now.. we would have done our bit to influence the statistic you quote, but I just wonder how much that is good news if we weren't employing more people as we grew? A moot point, but what good is growth if jobs don't follow?

When I started work, a job, just about any full time job was enough money to get a house and raise a family. I recall feeling rather angry when a local politician pointed out that the site of the pit I used to work on, with its B&Q distribution centre and two or three other lorry depots employed more people than the pit had. Aye, and 99% of those job numbers don't bring in enough money to live on as a single person as a monk let alone get a house, car, raise a family and spend Saturday night getting pissed.

A rich country can afford a good welfare program but to try and sustain it, we need more contributors than recipients, and that means decently paid jobs stemming from the statistics you mention.

You point out a good news aspect of this discussion, and I certainly don't want to dismiss it, but the industrial picture Th*tcher inherited was one of output equating to people contributing to society. I may have had what I called a successful business life and sold up happy, but the ratio of turnover to families supported by it fell as output grew. There is a part of me that is an unreformed socialist, (no stronger than the bastard capitalist I seem to be according to one businessman on this thread) and I do regret that the survival need for automation and reducing overheads leads to less jobs. So.. is the success of my old company (doing great still, by the way with its new owners) good because of the taxes it pays, or bad because of the reduction in workforce?

Me? I still don't know.

Subject: RE: BS: Nasty Thatcher rightly calls Palin nuts?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Jun 11 - 02:52 PM

A minimal or even a zero growth economy and society can work pretty well. After all, one way and another, that is the kind of model we've generally had for most of the time humanity has been around.

It's got its problems, but nothing insuperable. And it is longterm viable, in a way that systems built round the expectation of sustained growth can never be. Here's a website with some interesting stuff about this kind of thing - Zero Growth Economy Conference.

Subject: RE: BS: Nasty Thatcher rightly calls Palin nuts?
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 Jun 11 - 03:22 AM

I too have a great deal of trouble with the issue of 'constant growth'. It seems to me that that concept reflects greed more than need.

Juneau, Alaska, is a long, narrow town of 30,000 situated on the American mainland west of Canada and north of the contiguous 48 states. There is limited land mass so unless we build double-decker highways there is not a whole lot of room for more people, even if we built high rises that could theortically house a gazillion people.

We don't have much industry as such but we have a brewery which has grown too successful to any longer be called 'micro', we have a great many artists of all sorts from world class musicians to internationally known painters and writers, a high proportion of college graduates, even major basketball players: Carlos Boozer is a Juneau boy :), a viable fishing industry, a bustling tourist destination, and lots of government on three levels. Oh, and stunningly spectacular beauty all around us.

Some people think we have to grow, that if we don't, we will stagnate.

In my view, when one has an optimum number of people and a sustainable financial base, one needn't think in terms of bigger but better.

I would love Juneau to be a model for problem solving. I would love us to address - and solve - the issue of homelessness (A great many people from 'down south' come up here and promptly fall through cracks they didn't even know were there), I would love us to address - and resolve - alcohol and drug addictions, I would love us to address with finality and fluidity the issue of cultural differences where each bloc would feel fully equal and accepting of all others.

Why should we get bigger?

Subject: RE: BS: Nasty Thatcher rightly calls Palin nuts?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 19 Jun 11 - 04:29 AM

{This post small and entirely in brackets because it is a drift based on my "legendary pedantry". But a couple of posts some way back confused the names of the distinguished C19 novelist William Makepeace Thackeray & the distinguished late C20 singer-songwriter Jake Thackray ~~ the latter having, please note, no 'e' in his surname.

Apologies for the interruption ~~ but "accuracy matters" shall ever be my watchword.

~Michael~}

Subject: RE: BS: Nasty Thatcher rightly calls Palin nuts?
From: Musket
Date: 19 Jun 11 - 07:19 AM

That'll be me then.

No excuse other than my lack of education and forgetting that a professional Yorkshireman would of course spell his name Thackray. Never met the distinguished C19 novelist, but booked the late C20 singer songwriter a couple of times and he always put bums on seats.

Got me thinking now, I wonder if my spelling was any better on the posters? Might have to commit hari kari, or however you spell it.

That's twice my spelling and grammar has been pulled up in recent days on Mudcat. The first time I can dismiss, or at least dismiss the businessman who pointed it out, but this? Must try harder Ian, must try harder, (or is that more hard?)