Bishops Put Boot into Brown's Promises & Policies

Generali

auximinies wrote: »

They have a point started on their attacks on Thatcher and continued today. The 80's model free-market liberal capitalism has done very little for the world's poor. Its final collapse this autumn will hopefully see a fairer more regulated version created in its place. There will be a progressive centre-left coalition in place once Obama takes the White House - anyone betting on a February election denying Brown the opportunity to stand with Obama in remodelling the global finance system is bonkers.

I fully expert a lurch to the Left as the economy gets worse. However, Socialism (or Progressive centre-leftism if you prefer) is darned expensive and the world is a little short on cash right now - it is hard to see where the money for a 'fairer' system can come from.

I also expect increasing demands for protectionism and an end to Globalisation. That will screw the poor, drive up inflation and seriously reduce living standards across the world.

Both are likely. Both are terrible outcomes as I fear what will follow on from them.

auximinies

Generali - how many billions has the global economy lost on unfettered free-market capitalism? If as you say we're all a little short me cash its because the markets have blown all our money.

And what do you think the centre-left will create? The market will still exist, it'll just be regulated to prevent its own greed destroying itself again. And state ownership is an alternative to letting banks go under taking ordinary people's money with them. Its not an aim, its an emergency measure.

So with respect to those of you warning against "socialism", having seen your beloved free market nearly screw us all for the very few getting very rich, I'll take your comments on right and wrong under advisement.

Generali

auximinies wrote: »

Generali - how many billions has the global economy lost on unfettered free-market capitalism? If as you say we're all a little short me cash its because the markets have blown all our money.

And what do you think the centre-left will create? The market will still exist, it'll just be regulated to prevent its own greed destroying itself again. And state ownership is an alternative to letting banks go under taking ordinary people's money with them. Its not an aim, its an emergency measure.

So with respect to those of you warning against "socialism", having seen your beloved free market nearly screw us all for the very few getting very rich, I'll take your comments on right and wrong under advisement.

We don't have unfettered free market capitalism. We have a highly regulated system which I call Corporatism (an incorrect use of the word) that encourages the formation of large corporations which can then dominate industrial sectors, reduce competition and force countries to pass laws which suit their needs. IMO, this was one of the reasons for the catestrophic failure of regulation that led to the current problems we see in the banking sector.

If you think banks operate in a free market, try setting one up! You can't have a free market without the ability for new competitors to enter the market.

I understand the viewpoint and I would like to see a more equitable division of wealth and income. It's just we differ on the best way to do it. I would like to see lots of small privately owned companies, competing freely with the minimum of regulation.

My guess you believe that the best end is going to be a small number of highly regulated and in many cases nationally owned companies (I apologise for putting words in your mouth). My belief is that ends up with a collosal misallocation of resources, and reduced real incomes as a result and that the people that do worst under such a system are the poor as it keeps them poor!

An end to free trade (not free markets but free trade) would be catestrophic and would lead to a massive world wide recession. Most people blame the severety of the 1930s depression on the rigidity of the Gold Standard making countries unable to allow their currencies to find the right level and more especially the increase in protectionism following the Smoot-Hawley Tarriff Act 1931 (1930?).

iolanthe07

As a fulltime trader that would probably not be appropriate, I just happen to consider the clergy to be a bunch of sanctimonious blasphemers, that's all.

What a strangely venomous thing to write. I have worked with members of the clergy over many years and, like any other group, they are a mixed bunch. But on the whole I have found them to be sincere and they seem to work quite long hours for the sort of salary most of us wouldn't get out of bed for. I don't know why they deserve a comment like that.

ManAtHome

Channel 5 today at 5pm may be worth a watch (although the title doesn't make it sound too high-brow...).

Who's Got God's Millions?
With the industrialised countries currently facing the prospect of a financial meltdown, Robert Llewellyn sets out to discover the monetary worth of four of the world's religions — Anglicanism, Catholicism, Judaism and Islam. His travels take him to the cathedrals of Canterbury and Westminster, the East London Mosque, Jerusalem and the Vatican City as he tries to calculate the assets and income of each faith.

robin_banks

I hope this isn't a cheap attempt to 'bash the bishop'

neverdespairgirl

ISTR that the Church got a bit embarrassed a few years ago because they'd made a packet on some shares. They had a stake in the pharmacy company that made Viagra, and weren't all that happy about the source of all the wonga (-:

neverdespairgirl

amcluesent wrote: »

A dour Presbyterian like Clown will relish bashing the bishop!

Reminds me of the Scottish paragraph from Flanders and Swann's English National Anthem:

The Scotsman is mean, as we're all well aware
And bony and blotchy and covered with hair
He eats salty porridge, he works all the day
And he hasn't got Bishops to show him the way

And Generali should bear in mind the last verse:

And all the world over, each nation's the same
They've simply no notion of playing the game
They argue with umpires, they cheer when they've won
And they practice before hand, which ruins the fun!

From memory, so might well be a bit off in places.

neverdespairgirl

macaque wrote: »

The Church of England helped to bury traditional conservative values by joining in the witch hunt against Margaret Thatcher and then John Major. Now they are discovering the alternatives are much worse.

My Dad says that the Church used to be called "the Tory party at prayer", but those days went some time ago.

neverdespairgirl

Conor wrote: »

"Bishops Put Boot into Brown's Promises & Policies"

... from the comfort of their FREE lavish staffed mansions as they sit there getting paid as much as Brown for doing sod all.

You can have a go at clergy for lots of things, but being paid more than the PM or as much as him ain't among them. Last year, the highest earner in the Church was, I think, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and he got abou £65k, I think. Suffragen, bishops, assistant bishops, deans and canons all earn less than £30k p.a. as I remember. The national average stipend for vicars is about £21k, and that's after a uni degree, theological college, etc. And they work bloody hard.

By contrast, the PM earns about £210k a year, which is more than 3 times as much as the Archbishop of Canterbury, and he gets 10 Downing Street and Chequers to play with as well.