Indeedy. I look forward to the day that the government can tell me how much the art I produce is worth, without having to worry about the frustrating desires of "the people".Indeed. If one feels that humanity is made up of rational actors in pursuit of self-interest, then surely they will work hardest when a person's success is tied directly to their productivity. Socialism is the way.
Who mentioned government?
Why is workers owning their means of production not possible without it being a state-controlled thing?
Isn't this true for all systems except anarchic ones? Capitalism requires a fairly rigorous degree of government intervention too: the establishment, maintenance and enforcement of private property rights above common property rights, for a start.Originally Posted by CyclopsRock
The one who mentioned "socialism". I've never heard a credible explanation of how socialism could exist without a de facto government controlling it. At least communism doesn't even pretend to be reasonable.
Well the short answer is because they don't currently, and I think it's hard to argue that we're currently progressing towards a situation where that's more likely than it was yesterday. If you take the government/the state out of the equation, where is the massive amount of power required to achieve such an initial state to come from? But the longer answer is...Why is workers owning their means of production not possible without it being a state-controlled thing?
I don't think the need the government for workers to own the means of production to occur - I think you need it to ensure that that's all you have. Without it, you'll end up at one of two scenarios: a) the more productive and effective workers accruing greater levels of capital commensurate with said productivity which then goes on to compound itself as we see in today's capitalist society * or b) these particularly productive individuals not reacting to their own productivity due to lack of capital themselves - that is to say, you can't set up your own, superior car factory if you have no capital to invest in it and nor does anyone else. The only way that efficiency can improve in such a situation is slowly, within an existing institution which a) assumes such an institution already exists (which wasn't the case before the car was invented) and b) that one person can convince the rest that a change is required, desirable and worth the risk, given that the people taking the decision - all the workers, collectively, one assumes - would not have anything like the same risk/reward ratio that current investors have (that is, changing to a new, experimental form of spark plug may be risky [as it's untested] but potentially could save them £10 off the cost of each car - a largely negligible amount when shared among the workers, but an enormous amount to a single or small cabal of investors, yet the risk to both is equal). This would inevitably lead to a stagnation in quality of life compared to their mighty capitalist cousins in opposite land .
* - I say this because, unless you expect workers to act in an irrational way - and your previous post re: rational actors suggests that you don't - those that are more productive and more effective ("surely they will work hardest when a person's success is tied directly to their productivity.") will earn more, and therefore accrue more. This would result in a slow but inexorable rise, again, of an elite class that's able to use its capital to better its own position in society.
Last edited by CyclopsRock; 12-03-2013 at 03:26 AM.
It sure does, but I'm not the one asking who mentioned the government. All systems require some form of governance - and I'm skeptical even to exclude anarchism from this. Whilst it's nominally without government, anyone with a superior ability to coerce and force will eventually use this to their benefit, which is the fundamental hallmark of the state. In civilised countries, these incidents are at least attempted to be crushed via the state which has, in theory, a monopoly on said force. Without the state you simply have that power diffused, but it's still in certain people's hands rather than no one's. In short, when someone comes to your house and demands money from you with a threat of force, it scarcely matters whether it's an emissary of George Osborne or your next door neighbour with no mandate at all. You're accountable to another.Isn't this true for all systems except anarchic ones? Capitalism requires a fairly rigorous degree of government intervention too: the establishment, maintenance and enforcement of private property rights above common property rights, for a start.
The only possible way it could work would be if there was a seismic shift in psychological and sociological behaviours, but then more or less anything is possible if you assume this is actually a possibility.
This is all true and I don't dispute it, but (and apologies if he doesn't) I imagine CHEEZMO agrees with this. The reason he says "Who mentioned government?" doesn't necessarily mean he sees an absence of government, but because you said "I look forward to the day that the government can tell me how much the art I produce is worth, without having to worry about the frustrating desires of "the people"." Here, you've (implicitly) asserted that the particular form of government action necessary to maintain this system is not a good one. To rebut this, CHEEZMO doesn't have to prove that there is no government action involved in socialism, he just has to prove either a) socialism doesn't require the particular form of government action which you assert is necessary, or b) that even if the particular form of government action you assert is necessary is actually necessary, it isn't bad anyway. I imagine CHEEZMO would argue a), because a) is the obvious response to a bold assertion on your behalf. This is what I think CHEEZMO was alluding to - the fact the government doesn't have to act in the way you assert it will act in order to maintain the system: hence "Who mentioned government?" - he certainly didn't mention it would act that way, you've just attributed an argument to him which he didn't make.Originally Posted by CyclopsRock
It sure does, but I'm not the one asking who mentioned the government. All systems require some form of governance - and I'm skeptical even to exclude anarchism from this. Whilst it's nominally without government, anyone with a superior ability to coerce and force will eventually use this to their benefit, which is the fundamental hallmark of the state. In civilised countries, these incidents are at least attempted to be crushed via the state which has, in theory, a monopoly on said force. Without the state you simply have that power diffused, but it's still in certain people's hands rather than no one's. In short, when someone comes to your house and demands money from you with a threat of force, it scarcely matters whether it's an emissary of George Osborne or your next door neighbour with no mandate at all. You're accountable to another.
This is for the most part what anarchist intellectuals argue, though - that it is necessary for rather severe changes to behavioural and societal norms to occur before non-hierarchical systems will work. The various different strains of anarchism just argue about how best to achieve that.The only possible way it could work would be if there was a seismic shift in psychological and sociological behaviours, but then more or less anything is possible if you assume this is actually a possibility.
I'd agree with all this except that he also went on to say "Why is workers owning their means of production not possible without it being a state-controlled thing?" But you're right, I was (at that point, at least) wrongly projecting a certain argument onto Cheezmo, albeit one he then did go on to make.This is all true and I don't dispute it, but (and apologies if he doesn't) I imagine CHEEZMO agrees with this. The reason he says "Who mentioned government?" doesn't necessarily mean he sees an absence of government, but because you said "I look forward to the day that the government can tell me how much the art I produce is worth, without having to worry about the frustrating desires of "the people"." Here, you've (implicitly) asserted that the particular form of government action necessary to maintain this system is not a good one. To rebut this, CHEEZMO doesn't have to prove that there is no government action involved in socialism, he just has to prove either a) socialism doesn't require the particular form of government action which you assert is necessary, or b) that even if the particular form of government action you assert is necessary is actually necessary, it isn't bad anyway. I imagine CHEEZMO would argue a), because a) is the obvious response to a bold assertion on your behalf. This is what I think CHEEZMO was alluding to - the fact the government doesn't have to act in the way you assert it will act in order to maintain the system: hence "Who mentioned government?" - he certainly didn't mention it would act that way, you've just attributed an argument to him which he didn't make.
As for the actual argument initially made, I find it hard to understand how something like "art" could have a value in a socialist system without one of the two follow: a) the accruing of vast capital by the most successful artists (due to the vast discrepancy between the tools and materials required to produce something, and it's value to the customer - ie Banksy can spend £20 on a stencil and £5 on spray paint and sell a piece of half a million quid), something which presumably is intended to be avoided since that's basically what we have now or b) something other than market forces determining its value. I don't see how you could have a system wherein at least one of the those two doesn't occur. Even if the response is massive taxation on incomes greater than X, that's still the government (or whoever is collecting tax revenues) deciding its value, only post-hoc (and, crucially, after all the proles have spent their money on it - a de facto taxation on art).
Right, but I'm not sure how useful it is to entertain such things outside of 8-pint pub chatter and mutual-wank-off lectures in Hyde Park. Even if you (general you, not YOU, Mr Crab) believe that it's desirable, I think it takes a remarkable level of intellectual hoop-ju,ping to rationalise yourself into believe it's actually possible. The world has never been so culturally consolidated, there's never been less disease and poverty and war, and generally the vast majority of the world's population is getting richer and seeing their lifestyles improve. After millennia of being downtrodden and abused, I don't think that it's now or any time in the foreseeable future that this shift will occur.This is for the most part what anarchist intellectuals argue, though - that it is necessary for rather severe changes to behavioural and societal norms to occur before non-hierarchical systems will work. The various different strains of anarchism just argue about how best to achieve that.
Actually, maybe it's more 9 pints.
I'm not even sure he has. There's a degree of semantic inexactitude about 'control', which implies some sort of first degree intent. If the system is set up by the government such that the government very rarely has to directly intervene, or the system is set up such that the government can only fulfil second order preferences at best, does that count as government controlled? The government may have had to set up a particularly complex system with lots of rules and sub-rules before that system becomes largely self-regulating, but I'd question whether use of the term 'government-controlled' is applicable.Originally Posted by CyclopsRock
I'd agree with all this except that he also went on to say "Why is workers owning their means of production not possible without it being a state-controlled thing?" But you're right, I was (at that point, at least) wrongly projecting a certain argument onto Cheezmo, albeit one he then did go on to make.
This is actually quite an interesting topic given that aesthetics and how we value them is a philosophical strand in its own right, and I think the answer you get will very much depend on which strand of socialists you are talking to. I wouldn't want to answer for anyone on that particular topic, so I'll leave that to CHEEZMO.As for the actual argument initially made, I find it hard to understand how something like "art" could have a value in a socialist system without one of the two follow: a) the accruing of vast capital by the most successful artists (due to the vast discrepancy between the tools and materials required to produce something, and it's value to the customer - ie Banksy can spend £20 on a stencil and £5 on spray paint and sell a piece of half a million quid), something which presumably is intended to be avoided since that's basically what we have now or b) something other than market forces determining its value. I don't see how you could have a system wherein at least one of the those two doesn't occur. Even if the response is massive taxation on incomes greater than X, that's still the government (or whoever is collecting tax revenues) deciding its value, only post-hoc (and, crucially, after all the proles have spent their money on it - a de facto taxation on art).
I broadly agree, although sometimes I think people forget how much social and cultural norms have changed in 'recent' times, if recent is taken as being since we emerged as a separate species. It'd take a brave man to predict we'll follow the same or even similar behavioural norms 30,000 years in the future to the ones we follow now.Right, but I'm not sure how useful it is to entertain such things outside of 8-pint pub chatter and mutual-wank-off lectures in Hyde Park. Even if you (general you, not YOU, Mr Crab) believe that it's desirable, I think it takes a remarkable level of intellectual hoop-ju,ping to rationalise yourself into believe it's actually possible. The world has never been so culturally consolidated, there's never been less disease and poverty and war, and generally the vast majority of the world's population is getting richer and seeing their lifestyles improve. After millennia of being downtrodden and abused, I don't think that it's now or any time in the foreseeable future that this shift will occur.
Actually, maybe it's more 9 pints.
Well, I'd argue it is, but then I suppose I would. Take, for instance, the new Royal Charter newspaper regulator. It's, apparantly, not government controlled, and it's voluntary -but it's set up by the government, and if a newspaper opts not to join, they face massive financial penalties. It's the regulatory equivalent of the local mobster coming into your shop, looking around and musing that it's a real nice shop mister, it'd be a real shame if something were to happen to it!I'm not even sure he has. There's a degree of semantic inexactitude about 'control', which implies some sort of first degree intent. If the system is set up by the government such that the government very rarely has to directly intervene, or the system is set up such that the government can only fulfil second order preferences at best, does that count as government controlled? The government may have had to set up a particularly complex system with lots of rules and sub-rules before that system becomes largely self-regulating, but I'd question whether use of the term 'government-controlled' is applicable.
Which is all to say that soft power is still power, and as long as the government has explicit power of someone or something, it can exercise power implicitly. It doesn't actually need to regulate explicitly, because everyone knows they can do so if they want.
I think it's just a proxy argument for everything else, though. Art is the most obvious discussion point on that issue because it rarely has any practical value, only aesthetic or intellectual. A lump of iron has no value except that for which it can be used. But everything in between are various shades of grey. Even largely practical items like cars have a great deal of personal taste in their designs. What coffee machine you choose, what food you eat, what mouse you get for your computer. Aesthetics and what make us tick are different for all of us - and I still can't see a way home you don't end up with either the accrual of capital, or a situation whereby something other than the market is dictating prices.This is actually quite an interesting topic given that aesthetics and how we value them is a philosophical strand in its own right, and I think the answer you get will very much depend on which strand of socialists you are talking to. I wouldn't want to answer for anyone on that particular topic, so I'll leave that to CHEEZMO.
Aye, but betting that the dice won't roll a hard 12 is a lot easier than saying it WILL roll a hard 2!I broadly agree, although sometimes I think people forget how much social and cultural norms have changed in 'recent' times, if recent is taken as being since we emerged as a separate species. It'd take a brave man to predict we'll follow the same or even similar behavioural norms 30,000 years in the future to the ones we follow now.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...-key-marginals
UKIP doing well in polling of marginals but I really don't see them actually winning anything in 2015. They're the new BNP.
UKIP doing well in polling of marginals but I really don't see them actually winning anything in 2015. They're the new BNP.
They're the new Green party.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25213809
Services PMI down to 60 from October's 16 year high of 62.5. Still represents strong growth.
Add in Constructions PMI of 62.6 up from 59.4 in October as well as the manufactoring numbers I linked to a few posts up, and there is some thought that Q4 GDP will be 1%, up from 0.8% in the previous quarter.
Services PMI down to 60 from October's 16 year high of 62.5. Still represents strong growth.
Add in Constructions PMI of 62.6 up from 59.4 in October as well as the manufactoring numbers I linked to a few posts up, and there is some thought that Q4 GDP will be 1%, up from 0.8% in the previous quarter.
Promising stuff, let's hope things keep up. Would be interested to hear what ZOMG thinks about the new data and how his bank is interpreting the data...http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25213809
Services PMI down to 60 from October's 16 year high of 62.5. Still represents strong growth.
Add in Constructions PMI of 62.6 up from 59.4 in October as well as the manufactoring numbers I linked to a few posts up, and there is some thought that Q4 GDP will be 1%, up from 0.8% in the previous quarter.
Our proprietary index says 0.9% growth because oil and gas slowed down in November and October.
Our employment index is at a record level, and pay growth is rising. We have also started a new measure of disposable income growth/contraction for after tax earnings. A team is working on building a model and putting data since 2000 together so we can look at trend growth for this measure. The early signs are that people on the basic rate of tax have seen real terms falls in gross income, but a freeze in disposable income as tax adjustments make up a lot of the difference. They really need to get a handle on the minimum wage though, raise it by 5% this year to make up for lost time.
Our employment index is at a record level, and pay growth is rising. We have also started a new measure of disposable income growth/contraction for after tax earnings. A team is working on building a model and putting data since 2000 together so we can look at trend growth for this measure. The early signs are that people on the basic rate of tax have seen real terms falls in gross income, but a freeze in disposable income as tax adjustments make up a lot of the difference. They really need to get a handle on the minimum wage though, raise it by 5% this year to make up for lost time.
Interesting, thanks for the insight as always. They listened to you with moving green subsidies from the energy bills to general taxation so maybe they will listen to the 5% minimum wage increase! :pOriginally Posted by zomgbbqftw
Our proprietary index says 0.9% growth because oil and gas slowed down in November and October.
Our employment index is at a record level, and pay growth is rising. We have also started a new measure of disposable income growth/contraction for after tax earnings. A team is working on building a model and putting data since 2000 together so we can look at trend growth for this measure. The early signs are that people on the basic rate of tax have seen real terms falls in gross income, but a freeze in disposable income as tax adjustments make up a lot of the difference. They really need to get a handle on the minimum wage though, raise it by 5% this year to make up for lost time.
Even more excitingly, he's also suggested to Sony to get more PS4 units to the UK - do it!Originally Posted by Nicktendo86
Interesting, thanks for the insight as always. They listened to you with moving green subsidies from the energy bills to general taxation so maybe they will listen to the 5% minimum wage increase! :p
Well it was an idea that a lot of people had because paying for green subsidies through bills unfairly penalises the poor so that multi-billion pound energy companies can invest with fewer risks.Originally Posted by Nicktendo86
Interesting, thanks for the insight as always. They listened to you with moving green subsidies from the energy bills to general taxation so maybe they will listen to the 5% minimum wage increase! :p
The minimum wage is a really big point for me because it has a lot of positive connotations attached to it, not only will the working poor get a big bonus with incomes rising from £13,500 to £14,150 for a person working full time at the minimum wage. It will also rebalance the working equation so that it pays to work, even in a minimum wage position. Additionally with the tax free allowance set to rise by 2.8% it means tax yields will rise slightly as well, enough to offset a rise in business rates. Finally, raising the cost of labour will encourage more companies to hire British rather than foreign, with an expected influx of 350,000 Bulgarians and Romanians it is imperative that business is incentivised through the minimum wage to hire British workers who speak proper English, higher wages bring a higher level of expectations from employers.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...-privatisation
Another day, another bargain bid privatization. What else is new?
I love how the Tories gave Brown so much shit for selling off the country's gold so cheaply but yet they sell off everything so cheaply.
Another day, another bargain bid privatization. What else is new?
I love how the Tories gave Brown so much shit for selling off the country's gold so cheaply but yet they sell off everything so cheaply.
Last edited by WayneMorse; Today at 12:21 AM.
Shouldn't we see if anyone wants to buy it before saying it's cheap? They've already doubled the amount they intend to gain from privatisations.Originally Posted by WayneMorse
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...-privatisation
Another day, another bargain bid privatization. What else is new?
I love how the Tories gave Brown so much shit for selling off the country's gold so cheaply but yet they sell off everything so cheaply.
More from the autumn statement...
State pension age to be raised to 70 for today's young workers
yikes.
State pension age to be raised to 70 for today's young workers
yikes.
With the rise of life expectancy, I don't see how else they can go around tackling the hole in pensions. You only have to look at Greece to see unsustainable retirement policy in action.
I think any government in power would have to introduce such a move.
I think any government in power would have to introduce such a move.
In terms of my personal finances, I'm more or less going on the assumption that there won't be a public pension by the time they drag me from the workplace. If I do, excellent, I have some spare craps money.
Autumn statement in a few mins (I think):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/tv/bbc_...ment/watchlive
yup, now.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/tv/bbc_...ment/watchlive
yup, now.
Announcements so far.
Entrenchement of Keynesian economics into primary legislation. Effectively Labour's economic plans lay in ruin. Deficits in growth years are pretty much off the table.
Debt to GDP starts to fall from 2015/16.
Employers NI for under 21s is abolished. Big savings for bars and pubs in student cities.
Otherwise there wasn't really a lot. No big movement on the minimum wage which is disappointing.
Entrenchement of Keynesian economics into primary legislation. Effectively Labour's economic plans lay in ruin. Deficits in growth years are pretty much off the table.
Debt to GDP starts to fall from 2015/16.
Employers NI for under 21s is abolished. Big savings for bars and pubs in student cities.
Otherwise there wasn't really a lot. No big movement on the minimum wage which is disappointing.
Last edited by zomgbbqftw; Today at 01:11 PM.
I think the minimum wage will come in the budget - the last one to really have a chance at impact before the election (by 2015 any pledges except immediate tax cuts will fail to make any difference I think).
They still have this goldilox problem as Nick Robinson just said on the BBC. Having the walk the fine line between saying it's going well and saying they still have a bunch to do.
They still have this goldilox problem as Nick Robinson just said on the BBC. Having the walk the fine line between saying it's going well and saying they still have a bunch to do.
| Thread Tools | |