Corbynomics: A Dystopia

Generali

cells wrote: »

My thinking was that if everyone put it into place it would be a good thing in that the result would be that most nations are not big net exporters or importers of cars that a lot of production would be domestic

Its all nice to say....those nations that don't make cars should set up their own auto companies and make fantastic cars and win orders like that but the market is complex and entry is very difficult

I'm not sure why domestic production of cars is a good thing...? Surely we want cars to be made most efficiently. In the same way I buy wine from Aus and whisky from Scotland regardless of whether I'm in Scotland or Aus. Effectively, Scots swap whisky and oil for wine and food. Aussies swap wine and food for whisky and oil.

cells

Generali wrote: »

I'm not sure why domestic production of cars is a good thing...? Surely we want cars to be made most efficiently. In the same way I buy wine from Aus and whisky from Scotland regardless of whether I'm in Scotland or Aus. Effectively, Scots swap whisky and oil for wine and food. Aussies swap wine and food for whisky and oil.

I think at the centre of my views is the beliefs that if I know how to make or do something instead of holding that to myself to gain a short term advantage over you I should share the knowledge and experience so you too can become wealthy and skilled.

With regards to car manufacturing I don't see why all larger nations could not manufacture enough cars domestically so that their imports don't exceed their exports by much (that's not at all the same as saying they should manufacture their own.)

To be honest I think a lot of manufacturing will go that way in time. If you imagine a really advanced 3D printer (or lots of them) the cost of making the products would be the same everywhere so you would have them close to market to save on transport.

cells

Generali wrote: »

I'm not sure why domestic production of cars is a good thing...?

It isn't good or bad its vital for advanced economies

All large advanced economies need manufacturing and cars are a big chunk of manufacturing (approx 25% of all manufacturing iirc)

Its a question of having a sustainable balance of trade.

Of course the counter to this is that a free floating currency addresses these problems however extremely poor nations have been poor for a long time now. Their worthless currency and dollar a day wages haven't propelled them to riches

Generali

Why do large or advanced economies need to manufacture stuff? The money is in design, marketing, servicing and sales not manufacture.


Many of the largest companies in the world don't manufacture anything. Think about how Apple makes its money for example, it ain't by putting printed circuit boards and parts into aluminium and plastic boxes.

BACKFRMTHEEDGE

ruggedtoast wrote: »

He is a nice chap.

If you really cared about the poor, like you claim, you would never have supported him. He has no chance of winning an election and in the mean time the Tories will roll back everything the Labour Party has done to help them. Blair and Brown governments gave tax credits to the poorest, not the stupid loony left who have never managed to form a government.

You, and the rest of the left, will leave the poor poorer.

You are actually as much of a disgrace as the Tories.

N1AK

BACKFRMTHEEDGE wrote: »

If you really cared about the poor, like you claim, you would never have supported him. He has no chance of winning an election and in the mean time the Tories will roll back everything the Labour Party has done to help them.

Corbyn won as much by appearing human, as by his left of centre politics. None of the other candidates struck me as having much chance of being PM either.

If anything Corbyn is exactly what Labour needed; If he loses that's the end of the belief a lot of Labour supporters have that they haven't been left enough in the past. If one of the other candidates had won then they'd be leading a disunited party with a large wing who would continue to believe that a more lefty candidate would do better.

ruggedtoast

150,000 new Labour Party members.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2015/10/05/aaron-bastani/labours-new-members/

More than 150,000 people have joined the Labour Party since May’s defeat, a figure which exceeds the total membership of any other political party in the UK. Over 60,000 have joined since Jeremy Corbyn became leader, more than either the Liberal Democrats or Ukip can boast among their ranks. The composition of the party is changing too. The average age of the party membership fell by 11 years over the summer – from 53 to 42 – and more women than men joined. Something similar happened with the SNP after the independence referendum, when its membership, in a nation of only five million, surged beyond the 100,000 mark. There, too, new members were younger and most of them were women.

It goes on to say that the Tories membership base appears to be less than 100,000 and is on average 59 to 68 years old. Not great for getting activists out on the streets.

The question of whether Labour could leverage the rhetoric and dynamics of a social movement to come to power, as Obama did, is no longer academic. Britain is seeing the revival of social democracy – and socialism – as a mass movement. The Tories, for all their money, mainstream media influence and Australian spin doctors, might find it too much.

By 2020 it is quite possible that Labour will have more members than the Conservatives, Greens, Ukip and Lib Dems combined. Predicting that that will have no effect in the ballot box is simply not likely.

CLAPTON

ruggedtoast wrote: »

150,000 new Labour Party members.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2015/10/05/aaron-bastani/labours-new-members/



It goes on to say that the Tories membership base appears to be less than 100,000 and is on average 59 to 68 years old. Not great for getting activists out on the streets.



By 2020 it is quite possible that Labour will have more members than the Conservatives, Greens, Ukip and Lib Dems combined. Predicting that that will have no effect in the ballot box is simply not likely.

yes labour may eventually have as many party members as the SNP.
They may even get as many as 1% of the UK electorate.

Neither will win the next UK general election.

gadgetmind

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Predicting that that will have no effect in the ballot box is simply not likely.

Those who've joined the party were probably well over on the fanatical side anyway, so unlikely to make a difference. It's swaying those in the middle that counts, and Labour have failed to do that repeatedly.

cells

Generali wrote: »

Why do large or advanced economies need to manufacture stuff? The money is in design, marketing, servicing and sales not manufacture.


Many of the largest companies in the world don't manufacture anything. Think about how Apple makes its money for example, it ain't by putting printed circuit boards and parts into aluminium and plastic boxes.

because countries like the UK are too big and diverse to rely on specialising on just one thing

London and the UK specialises in finance but we don't earn enough from that to pay for all our imports hence why the UK needs manufacturing, farming, tourism, education (of foreigners) and other service exports

The UK or even the USA would be significantly poorer if they had less manufacturing.