By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Live UK political debates

jonop on 29 April 2010

I think cap and amnesty are bad ideas.



Around the Network
CrazyHorse on 29 April 2010
kowenicki said:
oh... lol

Now he says thay are advocating an amesty...

Sort yourself out Clegg.

Brown and Cameron are kicking him over this too.... Clegg is bad on immigration also.. nightmare tonight for Clegg.

They are certainly giving him a hard time but in his defence at least he is trying to address a problem which the others will just ignore despite knowing that it's not a popular policy.



Kasz216 on 29 April 2010
bazmeistergen said:
Kasz216 said:
bazmeistergen said:
mrstickball said:
bazmeistergen said:

Damn I need my bed you bugger.

It's difficult not to get cynical. However, I still see the leaders as human that do have beliefs and want, deep down, to help people. I think the system and over reliance on institutions creates this defense/attack mechanism, as does too much attachment to a personal ideology and identity. Identity is a shifting thing, like life itself. The trouble is that people get so deep into their own personal battles that the big picture is missed out. I despise the way the media has covered the election. It has been horrible.

The soviet union was a joke of a nation, I agree on that. It was basically a slightly different version of the capitalistish system we have now.

My perspective is an idealistic one, I am well aware of that, but as I said in the limits of national government essay, it is something that needs to be communicated. I don't want an EU/America/China superbloc system as it continues the current world system of division and competition based on scarcity. Entrenched interests exploit these divisions and are holding back progress based on the profit system.

It's all a bit much to discuss on a thread. My views are still ever-changing and I'm so tired that I am liable to make errors in explanation. So I'll leave it there for now.

Can I just ask you if you can clarify any areas where I need to rewrite stuff so my actual view isn't obscured.

By saying that the Soviet Union was a 'sightly different version of the capitalistish system we have know', you prove that you really don't understand economics, nor the economic systems of various nations.

The USSR was one of the pinnacles for the command economy for decades. It had no capitalistic system. The vast majority of businesses, and employment were nationalized - that is, that the government was the owner, and that there was no need for greed among the business leaders, as the motive simply was not there. That is far and away from capitialism which calls for the privatization of all businesses. You know, 'free enterprise' means people being allowed to run/own/manage whatever they want, how they want.

There are many other nations that have had that same spirit of nationalization - all failed. Non-capitalistic systems have had, bar none, the worst track records in the history of the world in terms of empirical evidence against their success. The USSR failed, China (pre-Deng Xiaopeng) failed, Khmer Rouge failed, Cuba has mostly failed, Venezuala is failing before our eyes. Removing the capitalism from a society via nationalization (in an effort to remove 'greed' and 'self-interest') never, ever work. Every time its taken away - weather a farmer in Zimbabwe or a marketplace in Minsk, you remove the desire for people to be productive, and work in an efficient way. There always has to be risk/reward in the system for it to be effective. Yes, its not 'perfect' but it is the best that we have.

Here is a sport analogy - lets say that a team was required to hire a player for no less than 10 years...No matter his actions with the team or club, he must be on the roster. Likewise, another team may hire and fire their players at will, under the discretion of the coaching staff. Which team do you think is going to be better at the sport? So too is the difference between capitalism and command economies. Constriction of the business process by government is a major impetus to growth.

 

 

Hi there.

Thanks for the reply. I think one thing I have been trying to say is that combat in debate is a bit daft. From my words I can see why you would think I don't know what I'm talking about, however, you are a bit presumptious to decide that what I said 'proves' that I don't understand the difference between state capitalism and more free market capitalism. You haven't tried to find out why I think the Soviet Union is very similar to the current economic system at all but this is because you have no idea about my perspective. The thing I have been trying to illustrate is that debate and commentary today is all about winning rather than searching for the truth and while I am not accusing you have trying to beat me I am suggesting that the way you responded conforms to the norms of the debate style I have been outlining.

The Soviet Union was integrated into the current world economic system up to a point (though somewhat based on the older nationalistic, internalised, autarkic economies, I admit) However, there was clear social stratification, there was competition, there were business targets - which as always ended in corruption and attempts to defeat the target through foul means (broken goods, half-finished products and so on ie a big decline in quality) and there was conflict and a drive to be the strongest nation on the planet. There are a lot of similiarities between the actual systems (from a wider perspective), though you are totally right that within the nitty gritty there are vast differences in the running of the systems. I still haven't fully explained this, but I'm off to work in a moment so am keeping this fairy short.

To go on to your point about failed command/state economies, I have to partially agree with you only (I am against the systems in the country though the ideal of cooperation and human progress appeals to me). Yes, many of them have 'failed' However, I think there are a few circumstances that need illuminating: Cuba has been subject to an economic blockade, Venezuela has been assaulted a number of times by American intervention and coup attempts - including the classic one in 2004 (I think) when the elites staged a planned kidnapping by making fraudulent claims about the Chavez government. We could similarly list the amount of failures of this version of capitalism couldn't we: 1929, 2009 global meltdowns, the massive difference in wealth between nations, the forcing of single crop economies on many nations, the ability of capital to influence governments and so on.

Anyway, I don't support either style of this system. It is based on scarcity and inequality and competition and I don't agree that competition between us HAS to be the thing that motivates humanity. There are other motivations.  I'm sure you've seen Maslow's hierarchy, for example.

Cheers. I guess we'll probably talk about this some more.

Maslow's hierachy actually proves why capitalism is the best form and an idealist form won't work.  I'm confused why you would think it would run the other way. Well, actually I do.  Most proffessors and pretty much all text books tend to teach maslow wrong.  I didn't even realize I had it wrong until I got a proffesor who was actually chosen to work under Maslow.  Though Maslow died before he could and he ended up working under one of Maslows students... he still spent a good amount of time with him and got to understand his theories.  You always need to read the direct works when it comes to Psychology... and Sociology for that matter.

The lower levels are weaker motivators... however they are also broader motivators.

If you take the first two rungs off the Maslow pyramid, your left with Love and self esteem as your primary levels.  Well, the love section isn't really economics based unless you feel you need to make more money to better take care of your family.

As for Esteem and self respect and the respect of others... how do you expect people to take the "bad" jobs everybody looks down on.  Who is going to want to be a garbage man etc.

You would basically need to rip all pride and identification from workers.

Captitalism is going to have less "self actualizing" people but it's overall going to be a lot more productive... since self actualizing people really only do stuff because they want to.  Which is problem with Maslow... people often talk about a "Self Actualized" person but there really is no such thing.

Oh, another fun unknown one.  Maslow compaired self actualizing with drug use... but said while it was like when a person is self actualizing it was ultimatly worthless because it was a "false up".  Which is pretty obvious reallly, a false high always ends up having you crash down much harder.

Interesting points, though I think you could do with showing how Maslow proves Capitalism is the 'best' form. It might be able to justify it, but does this mean proof, I'm not so sure. Perhaps you could have a go at showing me.

I would argue that technology can provide us with the broadest parts of the hierarchy and technology can be held back by capitalism's current veering into corporatism (trade unions, big business, pressure groups etc) Competition does not always produce good results, sometimes cooperation is better.

You make a good point about 'garbage' but again there is a technological solution to that as well. Make sure everything can be recycled either at home or in local automated recycle points. Of course, this is idealistic, as I said before. Also, who is to say that people need to specialise in being (identifying themselves) as dustbin person? What about rotation of jobs. If we took money out of the equation there's a whole load of people that can jobshare. I have to clean up in my house and don't find it alters my self-esteem. What other forms of 'obtaining' self-esteem? Rather than gaining respect from people having it from the very fact that you are alive? You know, I don't see why that is not a possibility. I think there is so much doom and gloom surrounding our own self-image that we miss the fact that we are capable of love without a goal.

My motivation for doing well in my 'career' (teaching) is helping the little monkeys to find a path in life that they enjoy and can succeed in. It has nothing to do with competition at all. I do like competition, but it is a bit of a game really rather than a way of life. Some people seem to see it the other way around.

Anyway, all interesting stuff.

 

Big Star Trek fan?



CrazyHorse on 29 April 2010

Anyway what really matters is Dimbleby >>>>>> Boulton and Stewart



Pyro as Bill on 29 April 2010

^^^
Should have had Andrew Neill tear them all a new arsehole for 90mins.



Nov 2016 - NES outsells PS1 (JP)

Don't Play Stationary 4 ever. Switch!

Around the Network
CrazyHorse on 29 April 2010
kowenicki said:
Education...

Cameron won that one. The teacher that asked tghe question was nodding like crazy when he was speaking.

Brown said bugger all and Clegg was confused and all over the place with some weird numbers

Not so sure on that. What Cameron said about giving head teachers more power and cutting red-tape was all fine but I'm not so sure about this independent school set up (nor their policy on parents taking over a school if they feel it is failing). Clegg is right that the link between poor performance (and behaviour) in school is linked to poverty and is the only one trying to address that.



jonop on 29 April 2010

I think the polls will be quite equal for this debate.



CrazyHorse on 29 April 2010
jonop said:
I think the polls will be quite equal for this debate.

I think Cameron will probably take the poll, I'm a Clegg suporter on the whole but even I'd have to give it to Cameron on this one on both presentation and policy. Brown was much better than the last 2 weeks to be fair to him also.



Pyro as Bill on 29 April 2010

I thought Gordy was told not to do that 'smile'. Doesn't do him any favours.



Nov 2016 - NES outsells PS1 (JP)

Don't Play Stationary 4 ever. Switch!

Pyro as Bill on 29 April 2010
kowenicki said:
CrazyHorse said:
jonop said:
I think the polls will be quite equal for this debate.

I think Cameron will probably take the poll, I'm a Clegg suporter on the whole but even I'd have to give it to Cameron on this one on both presentation and policy. Brown was much better than the last 2 weeks to be fair to him also.


yeah

I can see Brown and Cameron will do well here and Clegg should come bottom of every one.


I'm not sure. I agree with Cameron>Brown>>>>Clegg but Clegg's Obama act might pay off.



Nov 2016 - NES outsells PS1 (JP)

Don't Play Stationary 4 ever. Switch!