Discussion in 'The Lounge' started by Roger Hicks, Sep 28, 2017.
Hence the inverted commas.......................
If you really had read your own link you wouldn't have to ask that question. It was both of course (and, to some extent the Tory policies of the very early '70's under Heath that were intended to increase employment but led to unintended consequences) - and other things too such as wage inflation. There was a world wide crisis during the period too.
Do some googling on the economy of the '70's . There's lots of analysis available. Lot's of opinion about the role of the unions and wage inflation, about the actions of the NUM, about the world issues, the "winter of discontent" and the policies of both the Labour and Tory parties and so on.
Like many issues it's complex and like many issues it seems that you can't lay blame at a single door. I really don't understand how any right thinking person could possibly believe that the problems of the '70's could be blamed on a single cause.
Anyway, as I said in my first post, I'm trying to stay out of expressing political opinion. So that's it for this thread.
Liverpool under Derek Hatton is almost the above
Britain is a social capitalist society like the rest of the developed world. We're an immensely rich nation with the resources to give everyone a comfortable home with good health and plenty of food plus as much pleasant leisure as they could wish. Our political system is stuck in the 19th century so a minority of nasty right wing lunatics are able to block the fair distribution of wealth. I don't know if Corbyn and his supporters are the people to fix this but I'm sure that the Conservatives will continue to live down to their name and do their worst to block progress towards the healthy society we deserve.
Stretching the point - more than a little - to liken Derek Hatton to Stalin.
I was asking you what you thought since you seem to be blaming everything on Labour with just a dash of Heath.
Where did I say anything about a single cause? Selective reading or even complete mis-reading on your part.
Perhaps an exaggeration but Militant were using the guise of Labour to try and achieve their aims.
And what is "good government"? Social responsibility. You admit it yourself: "Free capitalism is constrained by government to make it decent to those people who are not in the elite. That constraint has been inadequ[a]te in recent months". What government constraints are you talking about? Have you ever considered the usefulness of consistency in rational argument?
If I were a kinder person, I'd advise you to refrain from such total drivel as "Total socialism which is proposed by Comrade Corbyn and Comrade Roger". As it is, I'll encourage you to continue with such dimwitted hyperbole, as it emphasizes the poverty of your arguments. I won't insult you by saying that it will show you up for the fool you are. Rather, I'll suggest that it points towards the fool you think you want to be: the fool who refuses to admit that all modern economies are mixed, some long way from unbridled capitalism and (possibly with a few exceptions such as North Korea) at least equally far from communism or socialism. Will you put your hand up to being that foolish?
No, no, no. Consider the millions who died from starvation under Derek Hatton's rule, let alone those who were sent to the gulags or disappeared in the basement of the headquarters of the Liverpool Secret Police. The parallels are exact!
Quite. I mean, look at such evil communist states as Sweden, Norway and even Germany. Obviously Britain is a much better place to live for the ordinary worker. And look at the way that the rich have all fled the aforementioned countries because they are overtaxed.
Oh: and what do you mean by "social capitalist society"? You must surely realize that there are only two kinds of society, Fascist (such as Mussolini's Italy, Hitler's Germany and Maggie Thatcher's Britain) and Communist (such as Soviet Russia, North Korea and Britain's future under Jeremy Corbin). It is utterly impossible to imagine any kind of intermediate society where capitalism is tempered by social measures.
Oh yes, of course... the full extent of the misery and torture inflicted by 'Hattonism' must have slipped my mind. How could I have forgotten such a cataclysmic period of recent history...?
Hmm. It's almost as if it's an inevitable part of capitalism !
But only almost; or alternatively, only of unbridled capitalism.
Capitalism, properly controlled, is good stuff. Likewise socialism. The problems arise with those who assume (in the teeth of the evidence) that it is impossible to mix the two.
The only differences between any political parties are disputes about the precise proportions of capitalism and socialism in the mix.
Up until about ten years ago Germany prided itself on being a social market economy. Then the whispering campaigns of Thatcher and the Chicago School disciples began to bear fruit...............
Agreed. The trick is to get the mix correct so that the most people have the best lives possible. Go too far to the right and you get the hopelessness of poverty with the excesses of wealth. Go too far to the left and you get a regimented society with no space for the things that make people happy. Moreover you constantly need to adjust your mix lest your society stagnates.
Well, maybe, but I'm not sure there's an example of practical capitalism where there has not been discord, strikes, and strife. Not inevitably leading to massive inflation of course, but I'd say the problems alluded to in terms of industrial relations issues are pretty much inevitable.
Then again, those who claim to be of a 'christian' persuasion could claim that they are following the Matthew Gospel: "To those that have shall be given, from those that do not have will be taken away" (or words to that effect - very approximately).
Hard to make my mind up whether that's an early case of "doing a little too much LDS" or there's some deep subtlety that's beyond my comprehension. On the whole I'll go with the Spock analogy.
I think it was to do with talent / abilities, ie "use it or lose it".
Of course it could be read litterally by those so inclined.
Trump may think it refers to nukes...
Separate names with a comma.