Society/Culture ABC to launch 24hr news channel - Murdoch declares warfare!

[medusala]

LOL. History shows neo-liberalism works. Hilarious.

Are you drunk? Of course it works. Who could possibly dispute that?

You think Australia was better under Fraser than Hawke? UK better under Wilson than Thatcher? The US better under Carter than Reagan?

Isn't it funny how the greatest period of sustained American economic growth came in the 50s and 60s?

Those years coincided with Bretton Woods which was a quasi gold standard.

And who advocates such a thing? (NB LBJ and JFK had rather large military spending to boost growth). Carter and Nixon both below Reagan and Clinton.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_RPTAaOI4R.../N_uX_VYRVTA/s1600-h/real_GDP_per_capita1.jpg

From someone with a clue, an advocate for Hayek.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Speech_to_the_Conservative_Party_Conference

But all this will avail us little unless we achieve our prime economic objective—the defeat of inflation. Inflation destroys nations and societies as surely as invading armies do. Inflation is the parent of unemployment. It is the unseen robber of those who have saved.

No policy which puts at risk the defeat of inflation—however great its short-term attraction—can be right. Our policy for the defeat of inflation is, in fact, traditional. It existed long before Sterling M3 embellished the Bank of England Quarterly Bulletin, or "monetarism" became a convenient term of political invective.

But some people talk as if control of the money supply was a revolutionary policy. Yet it was an essential condition for the recovery of much of continental Europe.

Those countries knew what was required for economic stability. Previously, they had lived through rampant inflation; they knew that it led to suitcase money, massive unemployment and the breakdown of society itself. They determined never to go that way again.

If spending money like water was the answer to our country's problems, we would have no problems now. If ever a nation has spent, spent, spent and spent again, ours has. Today that dream is over. All of that money has got us nowhere but it still has to come from somewhere. Those who urge us to relax the squeeze, to spend yet more money indiscriminately in the belief that it will help the unemployed and the small businessman are not being kind or compassionate or caring.

They are not the friends of the unemployed or the small business. They are asking us to do again the very thing that caused the problems in the first place. We have made this point repeatedly.

 

[SweetLeftFoot]

See, this is the fundamental problem.

You define success and 'better' merely by cash and economic indicators.

There's so much more to life than that. The US fall in real standard of living since the 60s for the middle class is a key example of that.

But you'll just dismiss that as 'Guardian reader' nonsense.

For example, the position of the average US middle class family has gotten worse.

They now have to work two/three jobs to make the money and maintain the standard of living one income could support in the 60s.

But you see this as good - 'more employment'.

They may have a bigger house in square feet - 'higher standard of living to you' - but they have to spend four hours each day in a car commuting to and form workplaces to pay for it.

I'd suggest you read some Mark Ames on the impact Reagan and cronies had on actual American middle class life - Going Postal.

 

[medusala]

See, this is the fundamental problem.

You define success and 'better' merely by cash and economic indicators.

There's so much more to life than that. The US fall in real standard of living since the 60s for the middle class is a key example of that.

But you'll just dismiss that as 'Guardian reader' nonsense.

It largely is. The Guardian is full of delusional utopian stupidity.

It would have you believe autarky is all good, that you can hide behind tariff walls, have high minimum wages, full employment and mininal hours.

You can't. It has been tried. The UK tried this model in the 70s. It was a disaster. They couldnt even keep the lights on.

Noone says neo liberal is not without issues. Free trade for example has destroyed (though it would happen eventually in any event) plenty of manufacturing jobs. However on the other side the poor get access to cheap clothes, tvs, food etc. Jobs are also created in services and other areas.

This might upset people in coal mining areas and the shipyards (hence Scottish whingeing as their snout is removed from the protectionist trough) but overall the UK was far better off.

By the way if anyone suggested that we return to the 50s with stay at home wives etc the Guardian and its scribblers like Toynbee would be apoplectic with rage

 

[fairdinkum]

The Austrians M.O. in any mixed economy is to say the sky is falling. One out of ten times they are right, the rest of the time they are dead wrong

Yes indeed.

Also, Meds, you still haven't answered my question regarding the importance of 'property rights'.

 

[Chief]

By the way if anyone suggested that we return to the 50s with stay at home wives etc the Guardian and its scribblers like Toynbee would be apoplectic with rage

It's about choice.

 

[SweetLeftFoot]

It largely is. The Guardian is full of delusional utopian stupidity.

LOL. See, this is your problem. You're so ideological and black and white. I don't like much of the stuff in the Torygraph, but there's I agree with. Same with The Guardian. Same with the Mail.

It would have you believe autarky is all good, that you can hide behind tariff walls, have high minimum wages, full employment and mininal hours.

No it wouldn't. You believe it would, but it doesn't. It just fits your mindset to believe it would.

You can't. It has been tried. The UK tried this model in the 70s. It was a disaster. They couldnt even keep the lights on.

There were a hell of a lot more factors at play than just that.

But using your example of taking one countries economic experience at one time adn applying to a whole spectrum of economic thought, then you must agree Somalia now shows an unfettered free market is a disasetr.

Noone says neo liberal is not without issues. Free trade for example has destroyed (though it would happen eventually in any event) plenty of manufacturing jobs. However on the other side the poor get access to cheap clothes, tvs, food etc. Jobs are also created in services and other areas.

They had clothes and food before ... many would argue better clothes and food. In the West, neo liberalism takes away one thing and replaces it with something less good and the difference goes to the pockets of the super wealthy who control the process.

This process is repeated every so often to ensure the flow of profit. Its why since neo liberalism became the dominant ideology in the West, we've seen a rapid consolidation of wealth at the very top of the pile.

Its a deliberate ploy by the rich to get richer at the expense of the middle class.

The way this is achieved is by distracting the vast majority from how they are being robbed. In the south of the US, the key example, this is done by God n guns ... get the poor to vote against their own economic interest on cultural issues. In Britain, its booze and sleb tat.

This might upset people in coal mining areas and the shipyards (hence Scottish whingeing as their snout is removed from the protectionist trough) but overall the UK was far better off.

Not overall. The south east did a lot better, but parts of the country were effectively destroyed and its hard to see them coming back.

You can quote stats to show that GDP growth over the whole UK went up, but the reality is that it was concentrated in the hands of a very few.

By the way if anyone suggested that we return to the 50s with stay at home wives etc the Guardian and its scribblers like Toynbee would be apoplectic with rage

Again, bullshit dialectic blackwhite crap.

It doesn't have to be an either/or choice.

 

[placebo]

Oh he brought up Somalia! Haha.

I think that's about the 5th member to do so.

Anarchy=/=Free markets
How many times does this have to be said?

 

[medusala]

LOL. See, this is your problem. You're so ideological and black and white. I don't like much of the stuff in the Torygraph, but there's I agree with. Same with The Guardian. Same with the Mail.

I read a bit of the Guardian (due to it being in Starbucks). There is the odd good column but Toynbee and Monbiot are way out there, ditto editorials.

No it wouldn't. You believe it would, but it doesn't. It just fits your mindset to believe it would.

I wouldnt read it if I didnt think it had something to offer. I dont touch the Daily Mail.

There were a hell of a lot more factors at play than just that.

You cant use the oil crisis as an excuse, the issues predated that.

But using your example of taking one countries economic experience at one time adn applying to a whole spectrum of economic thought, then you must agree Somalia now shows an unfettered free market is a disasetr.

Again, you confuse anarchy with free markets. They are not the same.

They had clothes and food before ... many would argue better clothes and food.

Possibly. However, that food and clothes hurt the poor. The repeal of the corn laws favoured the poor. Food became much cheaper.

Hugh FW bangs on all the time re mass produced chickens. Sure you can go back to naturally reared outdoor chickens but costs will rise dramatically.

Who will that hurt disproportionately? Ditto if all clothes in the UK was made from English wool and manufactured in England.

In the West, neo liberalism takes away one thing and replaces it with something less good and the difference goes to the pockets of the super wealthy who control the process.

No it does not. Two examples as above. You assume no competition. That somehow the additional price is pocketed rather than passed on. See inflation figures and the basket. You will see repeated falls in many imported goods like electricals.

Its why since neo liberalism became the dominant ideology in the West, we've seen a rapid consolidation of wealth at the very top of the pile.

Neo Liberalism is not the dominant philosophy in the West. It was last under Reagan and Thatcher.

Its a deliberate ploy by the rich to get richer at the expense of the middle class

.

That is nonsense. Who is vehemently opposed to the gold standard? Ask yourself that.

The way this is achieved is by distracting the vast majority from how they are being robbed.

How are those in the UK being robbed? Spending as a % gdp under this govt has climbed dramatically (to the almost unbelievable situation where the public service gets paid better than the private sector).

This is how taxpayers are being fleeced.

Not overall. The south east did a lot better, but parts of the country were effectively destroyed and its hard to see them coming back.

What right did they have to demand a massive subsidy from everyone else? The South East still massively subsidises them. Bludgers.

You can quote stats to show that GDP growth over the whole UK went up, but the reality is that it was concentrated in the hands of a very few.

Bollocks. See unemployment rate. See massive expansion of public service army etc etc.

Again, bullshit dialectic blackwhite crap.

It doesn't have to be an either/or choice.

It doesnt according to the Guardian because they are gross hypocrites.

They have one or two decent writers. The editorials are a joke.

You would think Michael Foot was writing them. They are that bad.

Exhibit A

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jan/27/editorial-economic-growth-end-recession

Most other countries halted it quicker, despite Gordon Brown's ill-advised early boasts about how debt-ridden Britain was somehow uniquely well-placed to escape from the slump. Nonetheless, in some small part and perhaps more than that, the levelling-off is a tribute to distinctive choices made by his government

 

[SweetLeftFoot]

Oh he brought up Somalia! Haha.

I think that's about the 5th member to do so.

Anarchy=/=Free markets
How many times does this have to be said?

It was making the point that bringing up one country at one point to discredit the other sides whole theory is bullshit.

 

[placebo]

It was making the point that bringing up one country at one point to discredit the other sides whole theory is bullshit.

But you brought up a country and implied it's problems were caused by free-market capitalism. They aren't. The statement was wrong and shouldn't have been posted at all.

 

[SweetLeftFoot]

But you brought up a country and implied it's problems were caused by free-market capitalism. They aren't. The statement was wrong and shouldn't have been posted at all.

Because meds repeatedly raises Britain in the late 70s to 'prove' that anything except breakneck free marketeering is doomed.

 

[placebo]

Because meds repeatedly raises Britain in the late 70s to 'prove' that anything except breakneck free marketeering is doomed.

..Which has nothing to do with Somalia and the comment you made about it.

 

[medusala]

Yes indeed.

Also, Meds, you still haven't answered my question regarding the importance of 'property rights'.

Are 'property rights' essential because they are an intrinsic good, or because you think society is better off when 'property rights' are protected and upheld?

The latter for a variety of reasons. It allows secured funding. Property rights also encourage investment and thus employment.

 

[medusala]

Because meds repeatedly raises Britain in the late 70s to 'prove' that anything except breakneck free marketeering is doomed.

???

I use the UK because it changed policies dramatically. The failure of keynesian economics can be seen in Australia, NZ, France/Euroland, US in the 70s and many other places.

It is very odd that so many argue that Keatings deregulation was brilliant and then turn around and say that Thatcher was a witch and neo liberalism is evil

And I get accused of dialectic black/white crap.

 

[Clay Davis]

No, I didn't.

You claimed that the people who were the major part of this economic collapse were inspired by the Austrian School. That is completely false.

Greenspan was a ****ing objectivist. It ain't that false.

 

[Suspense]

Yes I can.

Its the intellectual inspiration for the scum who have ****ed our world.

As I said earlier, Marx most likely didn't envisage Stalin's Great Terror, but that's what those who followed his ideas ended up putting in place.

Same with the Austrian School - the intellectual placenta of vampire capitalism.

f da world.

 

[Clay Davis]

Self-censoring again Suspense?

 

[placebo]

Greenspan was a ****ing objectivist. It ain't that false.

Not for about 20 years.
Certainly not at the time of the economic collapse.

Not to mention actions speak louder then his hollow words and he was not following the Austrian School at the time of the collapse which is why many economists of the Austrian School have criticised him.

 

[Suspense]

Self-censoring again Suspense?

f da swear filter.

 

[Clay Davis]

Not for about 20 years.
Certainly not at the time of the economic collapse.

Not to mention actions speak louder then his hollow words and he was not following the Austrian School at the time of the collapse which is why many economists of the Austrian School have criticised him.

See, this is why you're stupid (and why SLF has been correct). A Marxist would just as readily argue that Lenin and Stalin didn't follow the Marx doctrine. You lot are exactly the same.

 

[placebo]

See, this is why you're stupid (and why SLF has been correct). A Marxist would just as readily argue that Lenin and Stalin didn't follow the Marx doctrine. You lot are exactly the same.

*sigh*

No. You're the one that made the claim he was an Objectivist. Not at the time of the collapse. You were wrong.

He also didn't follow the Austrian School (the very reason the Austrian School continually criticise him).
After the collapse he blamed it on the scape goat - free markets. And he payed lip service to the public to save his own ass.

 

[Clay Davis]

*sigh*

No. You're the one that made the claim he was an Objectivist. Not at the time of the collapse. You were wrong.

He also didn't follow the Austrian School (the very reason the Austrian School continually criticise him).
After the collapse he blamed it on the scape goat - free markets. And he payed lip service to the public to save his own ass.

You don't get it, do you? The point is that the students of Austrian economics were the ones who screwed things up. Just because they didn't practice what they preached doesn't mean they weren't influenced by a kooky branch of economics. Same goes for Marxists.

Greenspan wrote a nice little article about the gold standard over 40 years ago.

http://www.constitution.org/mon/greenspan_gold.htm

 

[placebo]

You don't get it, do you? The point is that the students of Austrian economics were the ones who screwed things up. Just because they didn't practice what they preached doesn't mean they weren't influenced by a kooky branch of economics. Same goes for Marxists.

Greenspan wrote a nice little article about the gold standard over 40 years ago.

http://www.constitution.org/mon/greenspan_gold.htm

So every politician that agreed with what the Fed was doing, agreed with mass spending, agreed with more regulation agreed with COMPLETELY GOING AGAINST what the Austrian School said...were all students of the Austrian School? Sure.

Not to mention that the comparisons with Marx/Lenin are completely goddamned irrelevant. SLF was blaming the Austrian School for the collapse. If you blame them for the collapse, you're an ignorant twat.

And...an article from 40 years ago?....what's your point?

 

[SweetLeftFoot]

See, this is why you're stupid (and why SLF has been correct). A Marxist would just as readily argue that Lenin and Stalin didn't follow the Marx doctrine. You lot are exactly the same.

Yep, the purity of the theory.

All the evidence only serves to PROVE the theory wasn't followed correctly and that we must gird our belts and make one last push for ideological saintliness.

Its a shame economic models that run perfectly well in lecture rooms in Vienna or Chicago don't do so well in the real world.

 

[bit_pattern]

Just Five More Years, comrades!