Where would society be without socialism?

RainMaker_2

moggylover wrote: »

....when gross capitalism has crippled the Country (yet again) there are idiot out there that think that the greedy are innocent and will save the Country!:rolleyes:

If it wasn't for people wanting more, and more, and more, mankind would still be living in caves, hunting food using a spear. If it wasn't for greedy corporations you wouldn't have the mobile phone you now take for granted, and so on, and so on. The human desire to strive for more is what put a man on the moon, and no doubt one day, will put a man on Mars. This is what capitalism is about. It's not perfect, but it sure beats socialism, by a long shot !!!

moggylover

auximinies wrote: »

A brief history lesson for those of you with blinkers.

Post war we have had two economic systems. Labour won in 1945 and created the Welfare State and an economy driven by nationalised industry. This continued under both Labour and Conservative governments until the late 60s when it saw its first major challenges. The Heath government of 1970 tried to reform what had become known as the corporatist model but ended up going head to head with the unions and losing. Labour also tried reforms and was also beaten by the unions. During this long spell both parties had policies broadly the same - investment in the welfare state, wage controls, national planning, nationalisation (yes, the Tories nationalised things!)

Post 1979 it all changed. Thatcher brought in Monetarism (the control of the money supply) as a means of battling the runaway inflation which had battered the economy ever since the 1973 oil shock. She was partially successful but the recession of the early 1980s was deepened as a result. Post 83 ushered in what we all now know as Thatcherism - free market capitalism, unrestricted markets, privatisation. Most of these ideas were adapted from America, where Reagan had already implemented them. This Anglo-American neo-Liberal model was adopted across Europe and quickly became the only economic model in town. Labour challenged it unsuccessfully for a few elections before accepting it. Since 97 Labour have continued the same economic platform (as did Clinton in America) and the free market has reigned supreme.

What we have just witnessed is an end to the free market model created by Reagan and Thatcher. Whoever was in power now on either side of the Atlantic would have made little difference as Republican and Democrat, Conservative and Labour, all shared the same system. the system collapsed under a right leaning government over there and a left leaning government over here - hard to point the finger and say either side is solely to blame.

I have read some partisan stuff on here and elsewhere that is baffling. The system failed because it was unregulated and collapsed under its own greed. I don't recall any conservative politicians here or Democrats there arguing for tight regulation of financial markets, or action to stop our house price bubble - its only earlier this year that John Redwood in his capacity as Conservative policy wonk wrote a paper arguing that a Conservative government should further deregulate the mortgage market.

Labour have made many many mistakes over their time in power, often from the mouth of an arrogant chancellor who believed in his own boasts of an economic miracle. Pretty much the same as Lawson in 1989 who after 6 years as Chancellor was self-absorbed in his own growth bubble about to collapse. No Chancellor of any party can abolish boom and bust - it is a natural economic cycle just as boom is.

Now we see the creation of a new economic settlement involving state intervention and regulation and an end to cheap consumer credit. Economists are almost unanimous in their solution to the fix and to the eventual outcome. Even the Germans despite their intervention into politics here have spent more than we have bailing out their own banks, and have budgeted a 2% of GDP investment into their economy which is more than ours. Politics here is now a question of the future than the past. If Labour (9and every other government) fix things, then Labour will win again in the midst of the recession just as Major did in 92. The Conservatives are widely seen to have offered no alternative policies as yet - if they come up with something or if the downturn steepens and the government finally start looking bereft of ideas, then it will be the Tories election.

Either way its wide open. We have never been here before - a global recession hitting simulateously. It could go any way.

:T :T :T :T

But it won't get through - there are still those that will argue that the country has been brought to its knees by socialism and not by the free market! Just like there are those that think it is ALL the housing bubble that has caused it and not the over-dependance of business on credit as well;)

I'm absolutely certain that the Daily Mail must sponsor the economics education in our schools these days:rolleyes:

moggylover

RainMaker wrote: »

If it wasn't for people wanting more, and more, and more, mankind would still be living in caves, hunting food using a spear. If it wasn't for greedy corporations you wouldn't have the mobile phone you now take for granted, and so on, and so on. The human desire to strive for more is what put a man on the moon, and no doubt one day, will put a man on Mars. This is what capitalism is about. It's not perfect, but it sure beats socialism, by a long shot !!!

There is wanting more, and not caring who you kill to get it;).

If we are willing to take a gun and kill one person to get more then we are labelled criminals - if we are willing to crucify a large part of the nation, including many who have worked very hard to try to get a little slice of life for themselves, then we are kindly called Capitalists! Capitalism would be fine if it also carried some morals and ethics: since it does not then its' supreme examples are drug dealers, mafioso and bankers and their excesses are only reigned in by the less greedy and immoral amongst us.

We are supposed to be "better" than animals due in a large part to our propensity for compassion - such a shame that some peoples greed for so much for themselves and themselves alone makes them something that the average animal would be extremely ashamed of:(

ETA: in the big picture I REALLY could do without my mobile phone btw.

RainMaker_2

People operate outside the law in both socialist and capitalist societies. Neither ideology has a monopoly on crime. I don't quite get your drift Moggy.

tomstickland

islandannie wrote: »

For a start the Banking system would have collapsed.and the consequences would have been catastrophic.

What makes you think that that would have happened?

shaven-monkey

islandannie wrote: »

where is the capitalist solution to the collapse of capitalism?someone,anyone,anybody,please tell us.

Let the banks fail.
Depositing money in a bank is an investment, if you lose then you lose.
If you default on a loan then someone will be paid to chase you and either take the shirt off your back or if your shirt won't cover the debt then you live as an indentured servant.
The people who mismanaged the investments get shot by those who lost their capital.
Buyer beware, Thief beware.

Sapphire

Generali wrote: »

Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao, Hitler and so on alll described themselves as socialists and killed a good proportion of their countries' population by dint of having policies that any reasonable person should describe as "murderous"

In the case of Stalin and Hitler, they killed a good proportion of other countries' populations too (in the millions), as well as attacking other nations that were less strong militarily than their's.

Sapphire

moggylover wrote: »

There is wanting more, and not caring who you kill to get it;).

If we are willing to take a gun and kill one person to get more then we are labelled criminals - if we are willing to crucify a large part of the nation, including many who have worked very hard to try to get a little slice of life for themselves, then we are kindly called Capitalists! Capitalism would be fine if it also carried some morals and ethics: since it does not then its' supreme examples are drug dealers, mafioso and bankers and their excesses are only reigned in by the less greedy and immoral amongst us.

We are supposed to be "better" than animals due in a large part to our propensity for compassion - such a shame that some peoples greed for so much for themselves and themselves alone makes them something that the average animal would be extremely ashamed of:(

Well, a. we are animals ourselves (part of the Animal Kingdom, primates), so you should say 'other animals', and b. I don't think any species in the Animal Kingdom apart from Homo sapiens is capable of feeling shame. That's because we say we are superior to other animals – that we have a conscience and are supposedly not just governed by instinct, like other species.

Animals other than humans are innocents – they don't know what 'evil' or 'good' are, unlike humans who are fully aware of these concepts.

moggylover

Sapphire wrote: »

Well, a. we are animals ourselves (part of the Animal Kingdom, primates), so you should say 'other animals', and b. I don't think any species in the Animal Kingdom apart from Homo sapiens is capable of feeling shame. That's because we say we are superior to other animals – that we have a conscience and are supposedly not just governed by instinct, like other species.

Animals other than humans are innocents – they don't know what 'evil' or 'good' are, unlike humans who are fully aware of these concepts.

You will forgive me if I find that a touch pedantic and thoroughly patronising won't you?:D

You are quite correct but I doubt the other animals would want to claim relationship to us .

Furthermore there appear to be a very large number of homo sapiens that are totally incapable of feeling shame, and who loose all sign of their conscience when they smell money;) . Indeed there are also those that appear not to understand the basic principles upon which other pack animals live, i.e. that the good of the pack or herd is best served by everyone getting their share, albeit not necessarily the exact same amount as the pack leader, but certainly enough to make remaining part of the pack or herd a sound idea.

Perhaps as the years go on we are actually regressing to act on instinct alone without any of the moral and ethical tennents that we previously used as our compass and conscience, or perhaps some homo sapiens have just been so poorly raised that they are genuinely unable to understand the concepts of "good" and "evil".

Whichever, the "greed is good" society has brought the current plague upon itself, and that was pure, market lead capitalism showing its true colours.

tr3mor

islandannie wrote: »

"mixed with very weak regulation"

Maggies idea if you remember.

The FSA was set up by Gordon Brown as a box-ticking method of regulation, not one based on common sense. If it had been given prudent guidelines and sharper teeth then we wouldn't be in the huge mess we're in now. (We'd still be in a mess, but not a debt-fuelled massive sh*theap.)

Bill Clinton removed regulations, which had been in place since the depression, allowing clearing banks and investment banks to mix. This is where it got messy. Prior to this rules being revoked there was no way that mortgages could've been funded by selling securities.

An aside: The problem with parliament under New Labour is that it rewards spineless yes-men. We're currently governed by an egotistical, unstable control-freak surrounded by a cabinet of Churchill-esque nodding-dogs. (The insurance adverts, not Winston )

I can see positives and negatives in socialism/capitalism/raving-loonyism. If parliament was made up of a decent mix of strong-willed people then we could achieve some sensible policies.