Do you think we could have avoided recession if the Tories were in power?

bendix

Really2 wrote: »

I prefer to think treat people as I like to be treated. (and visa versa)

I see little to find entertaining about a recession lots of people are going to lose a lot.

Savers, home owners, pensioners.

One mans loss may be another's gain but I can't help feeling any gains I make during this time will be through someone else losing somthing.

Well, you can always give it back. Sell your house at a loss. Get rid of those shares while prices are down and feel good that someone is able to buy them cheap.

It's all swings and roundabouts . . . .Isn't the secret of a successful economic life figuring out how to ride that roundabout as effectively as possible, without - admittedly - destroying too many other people's ride?

ninky_2

Degenerate wrote: »

In a couple of weeks I shall be in Hungary administering a direct injection of precious foreign currency via the delightful employees at various upscale Gentleman's establishments.

how charitable.

Degenerate

ninky wrote: »

how charitable.

I'm a true humanitarian.

ninky_2

bendix wrote: »

without - admittedly - destroying too many other people's ride?

why bother about the rides of others?

do i detect a hint of altruism?

the dominant ideology is to believe humans are inherently selfish and competitive. however even on a purely biological level the survival of our genes depends on cooperation.

perhaps, as dawkins suggests, it is the gene that is selfish, not necessarily the host.

bendix

ninky wrote: »

why bother about the rides of others?

do i detect a hint of altruism?

the dominant ideology is to believe humans are inherently selfish and competitive. however even on a purely biological level the survival of our genes depends on cooperation.

perhaps, as dawkins suggests, it is the gene that is selfish, not necessarily the host.

Well, now we're getting into an intriguing philosophical debate a la AJ Grayling's book, What is Good?

When good people do good things is it for self-reinforcing, egotistical reasons? IE they selfishly and egotistically 'get off' on the world's good view of them, and that is their prime driver. There is a lot of evidence that Mother Teresa was that sort, and Princess Diana.

Similarly, if people do bad things for what they perceive to be good reasons, are they good or bad? I keep coming back to Pol Pot. His tactics were obscene, but his endgame transcended small implementation issues - he genuinely wanted a better life for his people.

Philosophers have tackled this for ages.

I've done altruistic things before but I strongly suspect my motives for so doing were less than pure, driven as they were (i fear) by ego and the desire for acclaim.

Anyway, back to the real debate: You're a bleeding heart liberal, but I enjoy jousting with you :beer:

a_rather_tall_man

JayScottGreenspan wrote: »

David Smith is a pretty odious journalist, so I suspect he may have taken some comments out of context.

Of course, it is possible that Vince Cable said something I disagree with, but without seeing what he said I'd prefer to defer judgement. When I've actually seen him (rather then getting it second hand from a journo) speaking in Parliament or on Newsnight he's talked a lot of sense.

Compare that to Lord tuner on Newsnight yesterday (for anyone who caught it). Not that I disagree with everything he said, but he was so weasily, obtuse and "on message" that Brown may as well have been standing over him with a flail.

Well I don't hold Mr. Smith in particularly high regarded either but what I was really challenging was your comment about Vince Cable regulating the banks and 'nipping it in the bud' if he was chancellor. You say it like a statement of fact when I think you are more than smart enough to know how silly that is. This credit bubble was going on in just about every country in the world and do you think in the face of all that he would have been able to say to our banks 'no, you are not taking part' and still kept his job? The political pressure would have been enormous on anyone who had tried such a measure, it was like a global arms race for the banks...all racing to increase their balance sheets and become bigger than the rest. Any banks not taking part would have been wide open to takeover.

I've heard Vince Cable speak sense too but character wise I wouldn't even rely on him to negotiate a discount off a used car on my behalf as he just doesn't come across as being able to. His strengths as a person are his weaknesses as a politician, top level politics is all about deal making, charisma and back scratching/stabbing and its why he is where he is, he's like a TV football pundit really...talks a good game but never has to prove it. Look at Tony Blair and all the things he was able to do, I'm not a fan of what he did but you have to admire how he managed to help start a war in a region and then after he left office get a job as a peace envoy for the very same area...now that's some trick!

JayScottGreenspan

Vince repeatedly called for regulation to rein in irresponsible lending from about 2003 all the way through to 2007. I don't think that can be denied.

He was particularly keen on making reckless lenders hold more capital in order to reduce the risk to the system. I'm pretty sure that under him the debt bubble would have been less severe, even if only a bit.

JayScottGreenspan

...(in the style of an old man's rant) and another thing, if you won't vote for Vince because he isn't 'slick' enough then you might find you end up with the government you deserve.

a_rather_tall_man

I didn't say I wouldn't vote for him or indeed any other candidate due to their persona, it's just that I'm realistic enough to know the political machine as it operates would crush someone like him very quickly. If you want to get to the top you can forget being 'nice and decent'. Harsh truth I'm afraid.

Gorgeous_George

The problems would have been no different - possibly worse.

Remember, it was the Tories who scrapped credit controls. The Tories who allowed the flood of demutualisations of OUR Building societies.

Of course, unemployment would have been higher, people would not have the support of a minimum wage. The rich would have been even richer and the poor left to rot.

GG