Tax and Spend not working

[applelover]

That said I can't stand the tories :whistling:

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

That said I can't stand the tories :whistling:

Join the club comrade.:thumbsup:

 

[GrumpyBlue]

Join the club comrade.:thumbsup:

Me too :raspberry:

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

But do you know who Eric Blair is? And would you assume that 'Mr Blair' was Tony Blair when you were actually discussing Eric? And would you look utterly ****ing ridiculous if you had a picture of the said gentleman as your avatar?

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

This thread is (i) an attempt to state that socialism doesn't work (ii) a means to have a pop at Barnablue

Whilst criticising of socialism is akin to shooting fish in a barrel I don't think that the last five years suggest that liberal capitalism is a particularly efficient system either. People who obsess about left vs right and state vs private sector are dinosaurs. The world has moved on. The only reason that the western world didn't fall into oblivion was due to unprecedented levels of state intervention.

I've never understood the tribalism some people have towards politics and economics. 'What works' is important not what fits into the narrow ideological boundaries of the small minded and half witted.

But who decides 'what works'? Beneath your simulacrum of reason is a plea for technocracy.

 

[applelover]

But who decides 'what works'? Beneath your simulacrum of reason is a plea for technocracy.

I believe that you would rule out certain solutions purely on ideological grounds. To me that is bizarre.

Please correct me if i'm wrong but you believe in a free market minimal state (probaby similar in makeup to the sort of economic system neil F supports). However there is not a single example of a state in history where this system has existed let alone been been sustainable. You support this system entirely on the basis of ideology.

Markets are better at some things whilst the state is better at others. Its just a case of finding the right blend. Finding 'what works' through the courage to take decisions without being constrained by ideology.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

But do you know who Eric Blair is? And would you assume that 'Mr Blair' was Tony Blair when you were actually discussing Eric? And would you look utterly ****ing ridiculous if you had a picture of the said gentleman as your avatar?

I'd be quite happy to test my knowledge of Eric Arthur Blair's work against yours, any time you like.

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

I'd be quite happy to test my knowledge of Eric Arthur Blair's work against yours, any time you like.

Do you want me to PM you about it, like before? :winking:

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

I believe that you would rule out certain solutions purely on ideological grounds. To me that is bizarre.

Please correct me if i'm wrong but you believe in a free market minimal state (probaby similar in makeup to the sort of economic system neil F supports). However there is not a single example of a state in history where this system has existed let alone been been sustainable. You support this system entirely on the basis of ideology.

Markets are better at some things whilst the state is better at others. Its just a case of finding the right blend. Finding 'what works' through the courage to take decisions without being constrained by ideology.

You answer my question by calling me an ideologue, when your own desire for technocratic solutions is based on an ideology that has been tried and failed, and continues to be tried and continues to fail. I favour small government because big government always fails. That isn't a result of my narrow minded fascistic world view, it's a result of seeing how the West has deteriorated through years of left-leaning tax and spend crony capitalism, and asking the supposed 'smartest guys in the room' to come up with one sweeping solution just isn't going to work.

 

[Neil_F]

Please correct me if i'm wrong but you believe in a free market minimal state (probaby similar in makeup to the sort of economic system neil F supports). However there is not a single example of a state in history where this system has existed let alone been been sustainable.

Hmmm... always nice to find out what I believe in. Competition and market forces have 600 years of history to demonstrate they drive prosperity and raise people out of absolute poverty. What more evidence do you need?

I'm in favour of low tax, small state economies because there is a mountain of econonomic evidence that such economies deliver the best rate of growth and prosperity for the vast majority.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Do you want me to PM you about it, like before? :winking:

That would be fine.(Btw,I can't remember any "before" here).

 

[applelover]

Hmmm... always nice to find out what I believe in. Competition and market forces have 600 years of history to demonstrate they drive prosperity and raise people out of absolute poverty. What more evidence do you need?

I'm in favour of low tax, small state economies because there is a mountain of econonomic evidence that such economies deliver the best rate of growth and prosperity for the vast majority.

Where did I ask for evidence of the value of competition and market forces? That goes without saying.

I simply state that not a single free market minimal state has ever existed let alone been sustainable?

 

[Napster]

I simply state that not a single free market minimal state has ever existed let alone been sustainable?

Hong Kong? Small government. Massive GDP growth.

 

[Neil_F]

I simply state that not a single free market minimal state has ever existed let alone been sustainable?

That rather depends on your definition. The Commonwealth in the 19th century was pretty close, but every market needs to be regulated to some extent in order to remain free. The principle reason is that all markets tend to monopoly; the objective of a firm in a given market is to eliminate the competition in order to maximise shareholder wealth. Governments should robustly protect against monopoly positions and make it as easy as possible for new entrants to appear.

This was the main thing that went wrong with the UK banking system from the mid 90s to the crash. The government facilitated a series of mega merger that left us with too few banks to enforce proper competition. Banking behaviour therefore herded around certain practices and made themselves too big to fail. Had proper competition been maintained then we would have had more banks pursuing different strategies and bailouts wouldn't have been necessary because there would have been a sustainable market even if four or five banks went under.

This is what I envisage as the economic ideal: the government enforcing competition through aggressive anti-monopolistic policies (including breaking up companies if required) with no barriers to trade and no barriers to new entrants.

Big companies love regulation; it gives them a competitive advantage over small and new firms because the cost of compliance is a major impact on the cost base of new entrants and smaller firms. That is why this country hasn't produced any of the new, fast growing companies.

 

[applelover]

Hong Kong? Small government. Massive GDP growth.

Would that be Hong Kong the British colony and now part of China.

 

[applelover]

That rather depends on your definition. The Commonwealth in the 19th century was pretty close, but every market needs to be regulated to some extent in order to remain free. The principle reason is that all markets tend to monopoly; the objective of a firm in a given market is to eliminate the competition in order to maximise shareholder wealth. Governments should robustly protect against monopoly positions and make it as easy as possible for new entrants to appear.

This was the main thing that went wrong with the UK banking system from the mid 90s to the crash. The government facilitated a series of mega merger that left us with too few banks to enforce proper competition. Banking behaviour therefore herded around certain practices and made themselves too big to fail. Had proper competition been maintained then we would have had more banks pursuing different strategies and bailouts wouldn't have been necessary because there would have been a sustainable market even if four or five banks went under.

This is what I envisage as the economic ideal: the government enforcing competition through aggressive anti-monopolistic policies (including breaking up companies if required) with no barriers to trade and no barriers to new entrants.

Big companies love regulation; it gives them a competitive advantage over small and new firms because the cost of compliance is a major impact on the cost base of new entrants and smaller firms. That is why this country hasn't produced any of the new, fast growing companies.

Communism/socialism didn't work out well but at least they have the potential to exist. This is becuase under certain circumstances conditions are so bad for a sizeble majority that they will overthrow the ruling and property owning classes. History shows several examples of this.

A minimal state will never exist because you can't have a minimal state without a functioning democracy. By its nature it has to have consent. You can't have a forced minimal state because it ceases to be a minmal state.

No democracy will ever vote for a minimal state because you will always have a large majority who either live in relative poverty or relative inequality within a market who will not be prepared to give up entitlements.

Even after the absolute shambles of 70's the Thatcher government barely scratched the surface of what we can loosely term 'social democracy'. Republicans in America have also completely failed to control spending.

It's a numbers game at the end of the day and the majority no matter how well they are managed will always secure entitlements whether that be through the ballot box or on the streets.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Communism/socialism didn't work out well but at least they have the potential to exist. This is becuase under certain circumstances conditions are so bad for a sizeble majority that they will overthrow the ruling and property owning classes. History shows several examples of this.

A minimal state will never exist because you can't have a minimal state without a functioning democracy. By its nature it has to have consent. You can't have a forced minimal state because it ceases to be a minmal state.

No democracy will ever vote for a minimal state because you will always have a large majority who either live in relative poverty or relative inequality within a market who will not be prepared to give up entitlements.

Even after the absolute shambles of 70's the Thatcher government barely scratched the surface of what we can loosely term 'social democracy'. Republicans in America have also completely failed to control spending.

It's a numbers game at the end of the day and the majority no matter how well they are managed will always secure entitlements whether that be through the ballot box or on the streets.

Marx maintained that capitalism contained within it the seeds of its own destruction.

He also asserted that each successive crisis in capitalism would be worse than the one that preceeded it.

I make that 2-0 to Karl.:thumbsup:

 

[Napster]

No democracy will ever vote for a minimal state because you will always have a large majority who either live in relative poverty or relative inequality within a market who will not be prepared to give up entitlements.

eh? so basically those on benefits will always vote for more government?

 

[Napster]

Would that be Hong Kong the British colony and now part of China.

Yes. It was whilst a British colony free to govern itself and did so with minimal government interference.,