In Britain, Austerity Is Changing Everything (NYT Article)

"because Neoliberalism"

is rather vague...

and again, there was a non-Tory government (whether you think they were about enough or not) for 10 years, some might say that the light touch financial regulations a certain Gordon Brown was in favour of helped cause a few problems there... but obviously it was all the fault of the party who hadn't been in power for 10 years at that point

I think you'll find the financial crisis would have happened regardless of which of the main parties was in power and was a global event so to try and blame it on the Tories is pretty silly
 
Gigabit said:
Neoliberalism which was created by Thatcher and Reagan led to that.

@dowie New Labour made the mistake of being very un-Labour. That was their biggest mistake.
Click to expand...

All hail free market capitalism, because organisations whose sole raison detre is proliferation of profit, and answerable only to shareholders who have a vested interest in increasing profit at almost all costs, can absolutely be trusted to self regulate.

"But but but but a healthy free market leads to a healthy economy, it's trickle down economics!" There is certainly a trickle on the heads of the average worker, I'm just not sure it's prosperity raining down.
 
dowie said:
"because Neoliberalism"

is rather vague...

and again, there was a non-Tory government (whether you think they were about enough or not) for 10 years, some might say that the light touch financial regulations a certain Gordon Brown was in favour of helped cause a few problems there... but obviously it was all the fault of the party who hadn't been in power for 10 years at that point

I think you'll find the financial crisis would have happened regardless of which of the main parties was in power and was a global event so to try and blame it on the Tories is pretty silly
Click to expand...

I'm just doing what the Tories do when they blame it on Labour. Do you see how silly it sounds now? But they say constantly Labour crashed the economy.

In actuality you're right both parties failed. But only one party is offering to get rid of neoliberalism for good, as should be happening.
 
FortuitousFluke said:
All hail free market capitalism, because organisations whose sole raison detre is proliferation of profit, and answerable only to shareholders who have a vested interest in increasing profit at almost all costs, can absolutely be trusted to self regulate.

"But but but but a healthy free market leads to a healthy economy, it's trickle down economics!" There is certainly a trickle on the heads of the average worker, I'm just not sure it's prosperity raining down.
Click to expand...

Trickle down economics is a lie, an absolute lie.

The best system would appear to be something down the middle, a social market economy. Like we had before Thatcher arrived and countries like Germany and much of Europe have. They have right and left wing parties but they all fall under the general view of some public intervention being good. And in the case of Germany, they have it as one of the founding principals of their economy.
 
The free market has its faults - but so far at least its the most successful of many failed attempts

And as for choosing between political parties - its like trying to choose between two terrible chronic illnesses, just pick the one that will kill you slowest.
 
BongoHunter said:
The free market has its faults - but so far at least its the most successful of many failed attempts

And as for choosing between political parties - its like trying to choose between two terrible chronic illnesses, just pick the one that will kill you slowest.
Click to expand...

It's not just the most successful it's the most efficient - that's really the key point. Left to run wild it can cause problems (E.g. not incorporating negative externalises https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality) - which is the primary reason for government intervention in the markets. The idea that we should go back the 70's with massively inefficient government run entities which is being spouted recently is just a complete and utter disaster in the making.
 
Gigabit said:
Neoliberalism which was created by Thatcher and Reagan led to that.

@dowie New Labour made the mistake of being very un-Labour. That was their biggest mistake.
Click to expand...


So it's regains fault not the Tories?

I think you're wildly over estimating the power of one uk party as you're essential saying one woman moulded the entire modern world
 
Tefal said:
So it's regains fault not the Tories?

I think you're wildly over estimating the power of one uk party as you're essential saying one woman moulded the entire modern world
Click to expand...

Thatcher and Reagan as architects of the whole thing. Yes they were responsible. They created the boom in personal debt that resulted in the housing crisis. The USA being so central economy, brought everyone else down with them.

It is no coincidence we are also having a housing crisis. This is what neoliberalism does.
 
Gigabit said:
Thatcher and Reagan as architects of the whole thing. Yes they were responsible. They created the boom in personal debt that resulted in the housing crisis. The USA being so central economy, brought everyone else down with them.

It is no coincidence we are also having a housing crisis. This is what neoliberalism does.
Click to expand...


So just to be clear you're blaming the 2007/8 financial crisis on the 80's?
 
ultralaser said:
It's not just the most successful it's the most efficient - that's really the key point. Left to run wild it can cause problems (E.g. not incorporating negative externalises https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality) - which is the primary reason for government intervention in the markets. The idea that we should go back the 70's with massively inefficient government run entities which is being spouted recently is just a complete and utter disaster in the making.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Nobody is suggesting nationalising anything but failed privatised utilities and railways, which are horrific and expensive. No other country in Europe has these privatised and yet provides cheaper and more efficient services. Privatisation is pointless for natural manopolies.
 
iamtheoneneo said:
You cant be that naive surely, There are 100,000s of people across this country that do the bare minimum to get by and already get a lot for free. So why do you want to prop them up even more with cheap housing.
What the hell is that going to achieve?
Click to expand...
That's an insane thing to say. Truly.

People work hard when they believe their hard work will be rewarded. When they feel they can better themselves. When there is hope on the horizon.

Today, you can work hard and get nowhere. To get anywhere today you to be educated, smart hard-working; but even better is to come from a privileged background.

It's a real shame that you can't just work hard and live comfortably in a small/modest house. You could in the past.

Now already someone replied earlier to say, "You shouldn't expect to own any house if you work in an unskilled job." Well why not? Appreciate it won't be a 6-bedroom on Mayfair Lane. But do you know why nobody below engineer/surgeon/lawyer can own any house? Because so many of the middle-class/well-to-do bought up all the bloody housing, not just the 6-beds but the single bed/two bed houses too. They bought up the 2-up-2-down and converted them into flats. They bought all the family houses and rented them out.

Working hard isn't enough when you are actively competing against privilege. Since housing became a financial asset not just a basic human need, the privileged have been hording them and using them as a weapon against the poor.

You find now that an entire swathe of people in this country have no hope. No expectation that things will or can get better.

You've taken away all their incentives and shown them that they will always be impoverished and in debt. Then you wonder why so many have given up. Congratulations, you took away the carrot, and many now only see a life of misery ahead. Many not being even able to afford to eat.

But yeah, it's all their own fault. Laziness innit. Laziness like the complete lack of effort put into many of these awful arguments blaming the poor for their predicament. It's lazy and it's wrong. Often the people saying it have no clue how "the poor" actually live and work.
 
FoxEye said:
That's an insane thing to say. Truly.

People work hard when they believe their hard work will be rewarded. When they feel they can better themselves. When there is hope on the horizon.

Today, you can work hard and get nowhere. To get anywhere today you to be educated, smart hard-working; but even better is to come from a privileged background.

It's a real shame that you can't just work hard and live comfortably in a small/modest house. You could in the past.

Now already someone replied earlier to say, "You shouldn't expect to own any house if you work in an unskilled job." Well why not? Appreciate it won't be a 6-bedroom on Mayfair Lane. But do you know why nobody below engineer/surgeon/lawyer can own any house? Because so many of the middle-class/well-to-do bought up all the bloody housing, not just the 6-beds but the single bed/two bed houses too. They bought up the 2-up-2-down and converted them into flats. They bought all the family houses and rented them out.

Working hard isn't enough when you are actively competing against privilege. Since housing became a financial asset not just a basic human need, the privileged have been hording them and using them as a weapon against the poor.

You find now that an entire swathe of people in this country have no hope. No expectation that things will or can get better.

You've taken away all their incentives and shown them that they will always be impoverished and in debt. Then you wonder why so many have given up. Congratulations, you took away the carrot, and many now only see a life of misery ahead. Many not being even able to afford to eat.

But yeah, it's all their own fault. Laziness innit. Laziness like the complete lack of effort put into many of these awful arguments blaming the poor for their predicament. It's lazy and it's wrong. Often the people saying it have no clue how "the poor" actually live and work.
Click to expand...

Great post but the older generation here will reply "work harder" or words to that effect.

I work 40 hour weeks, I pay my taxes. I cannot afford to buy a house. If this was 30 years ago I would have been able to.
 
FoxEye said:
Now already someone replied earlier to say, "You shouldn't expect to own any house if you work in an unskilled job." Well why not? Appreciate it won't be a 6-bedroom on Mayfair Lane. But do you know why nobody below engineer/surgeon/lawyer can own any house? Because so many of the middle-class/well-to-do bought up all the bloody housing, not just the 6-beds but the single bed/two bed houses too. They bought up the 2-up-2-down and converted them into flats. They bought all the family houses and rented them out.
Click to expand...

Well for a start all the adult population is expected to work these days, not just one gender - this is one major change we had post war and through the baby boomer years so while in the past a single man might have had an advantage in terms of spending power vs a married man with or without kids he has the opposite today. Fewer jobs required degrees etc.. back then too - unskilled work is simply worth a lot less these days - if literally anyone or almost anyone can do your job then why should anyone pay much for it. Add into the equation mass immigration, a lack of house building and historically low interests rates for a prolonged period and you've got further issues.

Even if we start addressing things like the lack of new homes and perhaps control immigration post-brexit it isn't like to change. In fact a smart immigration policies ought to encourage the sorts of people who will be of most use to our economy ergo the low skilled person who doesn't want to pull his thumb out is still going to be behind keen, hard working immigrants in spite of the fact they're speaking English as a second language. I also suspect that post brexit there will be a bit of a fudge re: immigration from the EU with numbers not reduced much by any deal alone.
 
dowie said:
Well for a start all the adult population is expected to work these days, not just one gender - this is one major change we had post war and through the baby boomer years so while in the past a single man might have had an advantage in terms of spending power vs a married man with or without kids he has the opposite today. Add into the equation mass immigration, a lack of house building and historically low interests rates for a prolonged period and you've got further issues.

Even if we start addressing things like the lack of new homes and perhaps control immigration post-brexit it isn't like to change. In fact a smart immigration policies ought to encourage the sorts of people who will be of most use to our economy ergo the low skilled person who doesn't want to pull his thumb out is still going to be behind keen, hard working immigrants in spite of the fact they're speaking English as a second language. I also suspect that post brexit there will be a bit of a fudge re: immigration from the EU with numbers not reduced much by any deal alone.
Click to expand...

Immigration hasn't caused these problems.
 
Gigabit said:
Immigration hasn't caused these problems.
Click to expand...

There isn't a single cause but the growing population is one factor as is the lack of new housing. Fact is the more people you have in the country the more homes you need, that ought to be self evident...
 
dowie said:
There isn't a single cause but the growing population is one factor as is the lack of new housing. Fact is the more people you have in the country the more homes you need, that ought to be self evident...
Click to expand...
But the more people you have in the country increases the total potential wealth it can create, as long as immigrants put in more than they take out
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom