Florence Mayhem

Originally posted by @ptriple42
"All leaders must compromise with their parties. But it is rare for a leader’s personal views to contrast so strongly with those in his manifesto. Rarer still is the company Mr Corbyn keeps. Andrew Fisher, the main author of the manifesto, has previously argued for the nationalisation of all banks; Andrew Murray, a former Communist Party official who advi ...[text shortened]... tives to the very defective modern democracies, instead of wasting yourself in small politics...

Why is nationalisation of banks so interinsically bad? Were you asleep in 2008 when they were saved by the state because otherwise every citizen would have lost access to their own wages and savings? It was not the collapse of Capitalism but it was the collapse of the financial system and it is fascinating to watch the neoliberal approach to its consequences. Do you think the Republican / Trumpian policy of further deregulation is going to be helpful?

I defend North Korea in a different thread. Much depends on what you imagine that implies. Have a read. Are you about to defend Trump's approach to diplomacy?

I do not instinctively line up against the USA, because my politics is not instinctive, it is based on intensive reading, but I have set out many criticisms of US fascism on this forum. Browse my posting history.

Corbyn and Labour did not provoke the Brexit crisis but Corbyn is doing his best to navigate a way through it. He has a very tough hand to play on this one.

You will have to justify your assertion that socialism is "small politics." As I see it, the past four decaades have seen the domination of politics by a neoliberal ideology, which is now progressing towards fascism in no uncertain terms, and the remedy will not be to maintain that ideology further, but to recognise the need for a class based alternative. Politics without class awareness is emasculated and self defeating.

Wasting myself? I disagree. Tell me you have a cunning plan, Baldrick.

Originally posted by @finnegan
Why is nationalisation of banks so interinsically bad? Were you asleep in 2008 when they were saved by the state because otherwise every citizen would have lost access to their own wages and savings? It was not the collapse of Capitalism but it was the collapse of the financial system and it is fascinating to watch the neoliberal approach to its consequ ...[text shortened]... and self defeating.

Wasting myself? I disagree. Tell me you have a cunning plan, Baldrick.

It's quite clear we are not on the same page: you are still discussing party politics, and not responding to the bigger issues I put on the table.

You might say I was off topic and you'd be right. But, you see, I have very little interest in domestic policies be it from your country, or any other for that matter. My reading of the article about Corbyn was only out of curiosity and desire to acquire some knowledge. I know enough now.

In departing this discussion, there is only one issue I want to raise: nationalisation. Your question of why is it so intrinsically bad reveals how radical (fundamentalist, rather) you are.

"Nationalization refers to the process of a government taking control of a company or industry, which generally occurs *without compensation* for the loss of the net worth of seized assets and potential income." (my emphasis).This a quotation from Investopedia.

If you still don't see that nationalization is wrong and immoral then you're irrevocably lost to reason.

Originally posted by @ptriple42
It's quite clear we are not on the same page: you are still discussing party politics, and not responding to the bigger issues I put on the table.

You might say I was off topic and you'd be right. But, you see, I have very little interest in domestic policies be it from your country, or any other for that matter. My reading of the article about Corbyn ...[text shortened]... till don't see that nationalization is wrong and immoral then you're irrevocably lost to reason.

Well firstly the banks had a negative value when the financial system crashed in 2008 and were rescued by vast inputs of public money. Quite where you imagine property rights fall in that scenario is a mystery.

Secondly, capitalism has privatised vast resources that existed as natural resources and were if anything part of our "commons," meaning assets to which the people had a shared entitlement, not private assets. Quite how you imagine such assets belong morally to private individuals other than by legalised theft escapes me.

Thirdly, a huge proportion of the value in private assets is generated by public actions and public investments. A simple example is land values, which are transformed by for example investment in infrastructure such as transportation systems and drainage of rivers or marshes.

Fourthly, many public assets have been handed over to private investors by right wing governments on frankly corrupt terms. [Just look at the sudden emergence of half a dozen new multi-billionaires in Mexico and tell me that came through hard work on their part.]

Fifth, private interrests have been handed the power to set a toll booth in front of essential services and resources without which life is not possible, such as water, and because we have no choice but to rey on those services we can be milked by a public tax for private benefit.

Without continuing, your assertion that nationalization is inherently immoral and wrong is based on an ideological attachment to the rights of property which had its foundation in 17th Century Holland and England, its prophet in John Locke, and its current expression in neoliberalism. You are the extremist here.

Originally posted by @vivify
Florence Mayhem sounds like a badass action heroine.

We would be excited to hear you tell her story...

Originally posted by @finnegan
Well firstly the banks had a negative value when the financial system crashed in 2008 and was rescued by vast inputs of public money. Quite where you imagine property rights fall in that scenario is a mystery.

Secondly, capitalism has privatised vast resources that existed as natural resources and were if anything part of our "commons," meaning assets ...[text shortened]... prophet in John Locke, and its current expression in neoliberalism. You are the extremist here.

I don't understand your point in the first paragraph. The banks were rescued mainly to safeguard the deposits of their clients, wasn't it?

Your second point is too vague; I don't know what you're saying, even with my fertile imagination...

Thirdly, what you are describing seems to be, in practice, a partnership between the private and the public sector. What's wrong with that?

Fourthly, I fail to see what, according to you, has happened to a dozen individuals in Mexico, and what that has to do with this discussion.

Fifth also escapes me. Are you saying that we shouldn't be paying for water supplied to us by a company because water is essential to life and so they're making an unfair profit?

Finally, if you take something that doesn't belong to you, for some political reason, and you don't compensate the owner, you are stealing, you are a thief. It's a matter of principle, it has nothing to do with the prophet John Locke.

Lastly, your arguments are severely weakened when you need tags (like neoliberalism) in your arguments, as you so frequently do. Demagogues do that, as you probably know.

uitably [ai]Originally posted by @ptriple42[/i]
I don't understand your point in the first paragraph. The banks were rescued mainly to safeguard the deposits of their clients, wasn't it?

Your second point is too vague; I don't know what you're saying, even with my fertile imagination...

Thirdly, what you are describing seems to be, in practice, a partnership between the private and the p ...[text shortened]... iberalism) in your arguments, as you so frequently do. Demagogues do that, as you probably know.

I don't understand your point in the first paragraph. The banks were rescued mainly to safeguard the deposits of their clients, wasn't it?

That's because they live by gambling with our money. They can't lose - only we can. You asserted that I was wrong to favour nationalising banks. I pointed out to you that they are already publicly owned - we pay for everything they do and we carry all the risk. It is time we removed the thieves from their comfortable positions, enriching themselves at our expense. When referring to clients, remember that for much of the activity of the failed banks, the clients were gambling in a totally reckless manner and why they should be safeguarded by taxpayers from the consequences of their behaviour is not entirely obvious to me. They wrecked our public services and that should be punished, not ignored.

Your second point is too vague; I don't know what you're saying, even with my fertile imagination...

Natural resources range from land to minerals etc and are national resources, part of our common and shared wealth, not personal and private ones.

Thirdly, what you are describing seems to be, in practice, a partnership between the private and the public sector. What's wrong with that?

A partnership is reciprocal, not a one way transaction in which the costs are socialised and the profits are privatised.

Fourthly, I fail to see what, according to you, has happened to a dozen individuals in Mexico, and what that has to do with this discussion.

I gave that as an example of the way public assets are corruptly privatised, enriching a few individuals while impoverishing the public sector and stealing from the people.

Fifth also escapes me. Are you saying that we shouldn't be paying for water supplied to us by a company because water is essential to life and so they're making an unfair profit?

I am saying that private companies are handed control over resources we need to live, and we have no choice but to pay a ransom in order to live. Such facilities should be either publicaly owned in their entirety or regulated to prevent the rich enjoying an unearned rental income while impoverishing the people.

Finally, if you take something that doesn't belong to you, for some political reason, and you don't compensate the owner, you are stealing, you are a thief. It's a matter of principle, it has nothing to do with the prophet John Locke.

Privatisation is theft when the assets are those we all should own collectively. When nationalising assets which should always have been in the public sphere, the question of compensation is one that can be fairly and equitably assessed, but I see no need to compensate thieves when we take back into shared ownership resources that have been corruptly made private. Without knowing which absurd example you have in mind I can't be expected to say more.

Lastly, your arguments are severely weakened when you need tags (like neoliberalism) in your arguments, as you so frequently do. Demagogues do that, as you probably know.

That is a nonsensical assertion. I am entitled to point out to you the operation of a blatantly irrational ideology. Your reluctance to accept this is not my problem. Your ignorance of Locke's pivotal role in the development of this ideology is again something you may like to work on.

Originally posted by @finnegan
I don't understand your point in the first paragraph. The banks were rescued mainly to safeguard the deposits of their clients, wasn't it?

That's because they live by gambling with our money. They can't lose - only we can. You asserted that I was wrong to favour nationalising banks. I pointed out to you that they are already publicly owned - we ...[text shortened]... e's pivotal role in the development of this ideology is again something you may like to work on.

1. You are quite confused here. First, you blame the banks then you blame the "reckless clients". Your socialist fanaticism is blinding you - or don't you know that when you deposit your money in a bank you lose control over it?! How that bank conducts its business in the future is out of any depositor's control and cannot be blamed on its thousands of customers. Who exactly did you want to punish by letting the bank fail?

2. So?

3. Nonsense. How does the public sector (government) function but not with the individual and company taxes?

4. "...impoverishing the public sector and stealing from the people.". I'm not even going to comment on such juvenile assertions.

5. Here you go again, "impoverishing the people." By paying for the water? You take this "impoverishing" to ridiculous heights...

Privatization: were those assets stolen in the first place? You just claim from your personal political point of view that they should be owned collectively so, therefore, taking them away without compensation is justified. Wrong, mister, it's a theft, perpetrated by thieves - if the pleonasm may be allowed.

Lastly, I don't want to take away your right to point out anything. It's the tagging of your opponents that weakens your assertions because tagging someone is not an argument.
Throwing Locke at me as the founder of whatever brings no weight to your assertion, adds nothing to the argument.

A little advice: use a program called Grammarly. It's free. You make too many mistakes for such a well-read person.

Originally posted by @ptriple42
1. You are quite confused here. First, you blame the banks then you blame the "reckless clients". Your socialist fanaticism is blinding you - or don't you know that when you deposit your money in a bank you lose control over it?! How that bank conducts its business in the future is out of any depositor's control and cannot be blamed on its thousands of cu ...[text shortened]... e a program called Grammarly. It's free. You make too many mistakes for such a well-read person.

No, I'm not confused. What I wrote is fine as it stands. There are diverse types of investor as you must be aware. You or I drop our pennies into an account and hope they will be there when we ask for them back. However, many investors have very active investment strategies and the relationships involved in banking are not as passive as you imply. Indeed, the difference between retail and investment banking is something you might like to remind yourself about.

So? So the way in which natural resources get to become personal property is open to serious discussion. For example, inheriting a mine, whose value may escalate insanely for reasons having no connection whatsoever with any work done by the heir, is not meritocratic. For another example, the astonishing wealth enjoyed by the Saudi royal family while surrounded with extreme poverty is sickening and not just. For another example, the Duke of Westminster has just inherited billions of pounds in land and assets with minimal inheritance tax, becoming the wealthiest man in the UK without needing to do much more than wear a tie and polish his shoes. But the examples could be extended indefinitely.

My assertions are considered and not juvenile. You are just ideologically hostile to them.

I did not make a universal generalisation about how nationalisation should be implemented, or specifically when and I certainly did not make the argument that nationalisation should always be implemented without compensation. I made a different remark, which is that in determining equitable compensation arrangements it is relevant to question how the owner came to be in that position and also to challenge what is implied by that concept of equity. Not every case should be treated the same. It seems you have a gripe about some particular case or cases, but you are not putting that out for discussion so your point is lost.

Reference to ideology is part of the argument I make because it is how I make sense of patterns of behaviour around me. If you dislike it, then that is your view which you are entitled to hold. I disagree with you, on this as on much else. Or I think I do, although you have not offered anything constructive of your own here, have you? Just snapping at my posts.

I communicate as well as I can within my limitations. Have you got something interesting to tell us about your view of the world or are you just a troll?

Incompetent May lacks skills needed in Brexit crisis

Observers of the Brexit negotiations generally fall into two camps. On the one hand there are those who, with some impatience, claim that all we are observing is a negotiation.

By definition, we don’t know what is really going on; all that we can actually witness is early-stage posturing ahead of a traditional 11th-hour compromise deal agreed by exhausted heads of state in the early hours of a summit some time next year.

Typically, the commentators who argue in this way are Brexiteers. Their frustration is manifest when they go on to argue, as one or two did this week, that the negotiations are so clearly not progressing very far that it is time for the British to start firming up in the “no deal” threat. On this line of thinking, the only way the European Union can be shifted from its “blackmail” stance is by the issuing of explicit threats to bring the whole show crashing down.

On the other hand, there are those of us who see only chaos. The UK has brought a lot of aspiration to the table, along with a kind of Great British Bake Off mentality, the one that sees a lot of cake being eaten. But we get few hard proposals and even fewer details. More deeply, there is alarm expressed in many quarters that the UK is simply not very good at – or at least not terribly experienced in – the art of negotiation.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/incompetent-may-lacks-skills-needed-in-brexit-crisis-1.3208004