CyclopsRock
Member
CHEEZMO;92139118 said:
Indeedy. I look forward to the day that the government can tell me how much the art I produce is worth, without having to worry about the frustrating desires of "the people".
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
UK PoliGAF thread of tell me about the rabbits again, Dave.
- Thread starter Chinner
- Start date
Indeedy. I look forward to the day that the government can tell me how much the art I produce is worth, without having to worry about the frustrating desires of "the people".
CyclopsRock
Member
CHEEZMO;92170666 said:
The one who mentioned "socialism". I've never heard a credible explanation of how socialism could exist without a de facto government controlling it. At least communism doesn't even pretend to be reasonable.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Isn't this true for all systems except anarchic ones? Capitalism requires a fairly rigorous degree of government intervention too: the establishment, maintenance and enforcement of private property rights above common property rights, for a start.
CyclopsRock
Member
CHEEZMO;92172397 said:
Well the short answer is because they don't currently, and I think it's hard to argue that we're currently progressing towards a situation where that's more likely than it was yesterday. If you take the government/the state out of the equation, where is the massive amount of power required to achieve such an initial state to come from? But the longer answer is...
I don't think the need the government for workers to own the means of production to occur - I think you need it to ensure that that's all you have. Without it, you'll end up at one of two scenarios: a) the more productive and effective workers accruing greater levels of capital commensurate with said productivity which then goes on to compound itself as we see in today's capitalist society * or b) these particularly productive individuals not reacting to their own productivity due to lack of capital themselves - that is to say, you can't set up your own, superior car factory if you have no capital to invest in it and nor does anyone else. The only way that efficiency can improve in such a situation is slowly, within an existing institution which a) assumes such an institution already exists (which wasn't the case before the car was invented) and b) that one person can convince the rest that a change is required, desirable and worth the risk, given that the people taking the decision - all the workers, collectively, one assumes - would not have anything like the same risk/reward ratio that current investors have (that is, changing to a new, experimental form of spark plug may be risky [as it's untested] but potentially could save them £10 off the cost of each car - a largely negligible amount when shared among the workers, but an enormous amount to a single or small cabal of investors, yet the risk to both is equal). This would inevitably lead to a stagnation in quality of life compared to their mighty capitalist cousins in opposite land .
* - I say this because, unless you expect workers to act in an irrational way - and your previous post re: rational actors suggests that you don't - those that are more productive and more effective ("surely they will work hardest when a person's success is tied directly to their productivity.") will earn more, and therefore accrue more. This would result in a slow but inexorable rise, again, of an elite class that's able to use its capital to better its own position in society.
CyclopsRock
Member
It sure does, but I'm not the one asking who mentioned the government. All systems require some form of governance - and I'm skeptical even to exclude anarchism from this. Whilst it's nominally without government, anyone with a superior ability to coerce and force will eventually use this to their benefit, which is the fundamental hallmark of the state. In civilised countries, these incidents are at least attempted to be crushed via the state which has, in theory, a monopoly on said force. Without the state you simply have that power diffused, but it's still in certain people's hands rather than no one's. In short, when someone comes to your house and demands money from you with a threat of force, it scarcely matters whether it's an emissary of George Osborne or your next door neighbour with no mandate at all. You're accountable to another.
The only possible way it could work would be if there was a seismic shift in psychological and sociological behaviours, but then more or less anything is possible if you assume this is actually a possibility.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
This is all true and I don't dispute it, but (and apologies if he doesn't) I imagine CHEEZMO agrees with this. The reason he says "Who mentioned government?" doesn't necessarily mean he sees an absence of government, but because you said "I look forward to the day that the government can tell me how much the art I produce is worth, without having to worry about the frustrating desires of "the people"." Here, you've (implicitly) asserted that the particular form of government action necessary to maintain this system is not a good one. To rebut this, CHEEZMO doesn't have to prove that there is no government action involved in socialism, he just has to prove either a) socialism doesn't require the particular form of government action which you assert is necessary, or b) that even if the particular form of government action you assert is necessary is actually necessary, it isn't bad anyway. I imagine CHEEZMO would argue a), because a) is the obvious response to a bold assertion on your behalf. This is what I think CHEEZMO was alluding to - the fact the government doesn't have to act in the way you assert it will act in order to maintain the system: hence "Who mentioned government?" - he certainly didn't mention it would act that way, you've just attributed an argument to him which he didn't make.
This is for the most part what anarchist intellectuals argue, though - that it is necessary for rather severe changes to behavioural and societal norms to occur before non-hierarchical systems will work. The various different strains of anarchism just argue about how best to achieve that.
CyclopsRock
Member
I'd agree with all this except that he also went on to say "Why is workers owning their means of production not possible without it being a state-controlled thing?" But you're right, I was (at that point, at least) wrongly projecting a certain argument onto Cheezmo, albeit one he then did go on to make.
As for the actual argument initially made, I find it hard to understand how something like "art" could have a value in a socialist system without one of the two follow: a) the accruing of vast capital by the most successful artists (due to the vast discrepancy between the tools and materials required to produce something, and it's value to the customer - ie Banksy can spend £20 on a stencil and £5 on spray paint and sell a piece of half a million quid), something which presumably is intended to be avoided since that's basically what we have now or b) something other than market forces determining its value. I don't see how you could have a system wherein at least one of the those two doesn't occur. Even if the response is massive taxation on incomes greater than X, that's still the government (or whoever is collecting tax revenues) deciding its value, only post-hoc (and, crucially, after all the proles have spent their money on it - a de facto taxation on art).
Right, but I'm not sure how useful it is to entertain such things outside of 8-pint pub chatter and mutual-wank-off lectures in Hyde Park. Even if you (general you, not YOU, Mr Crab) believe that it's desirable, I think it takes a remarkable level of intellectual hoop-ju,ping to rationalise yourself into believe it's actually possible. The world has never been so culturally consolidated, there's never been less disease and poverty and war, and generally the vast majority of the world's population is getting richer and seeing their lifestyles improve. After millennia of being downtrodden and abused, I don't think that it's now or any time in the foreseeable future that this shift will occur.
Actually, maybe it's more 9 pints.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I'm not even sure he has. There's a degree of semantic inexactitude about 'control', which implies some sort of first degree intent. If the system is set up by the government such that the government very rarely has to directly intervene, or the system is set up such that the government can only fulfil second order preferences at best, does that count as government controlled? The government may have had to set up a particularly complex system with lots of rules and sub-rules before that system becomes largely self-regulating, but I'd question whether use of the term 'government-controlled' is applicable.
This is actually quite an interesting topic given that aesthetics and how we value them is a philosophical strand in its own right, and I think the answer you get will very much depend on which strand of socialists you are talking to. I wouldn't want to answer for anyone on that particular topic, so I'll leave that to CHEEZMO.
I broadly agree, although sometimes I think people forget how much social and cultural norms have changed in 'recent' times, if recent is taken as being since we emerged as a separate species. It'd take a brave man to predict we'll follow the same or even similar behavioural norms 30,000 years in the future to the ones we follow now.
CyclopsRock
Member
Well, I'd argue it is, but then I suppose I would. Take, for instance, the new Royal Charter newspaper regulator. It's, apparantly, not government controlled, and it's voluntary -but it's set up by the government, and if a newspaper opts not to join, they face massive financial penalties. It's the regulatory equivalent of the local mobster coming into your shop, looking around and musing that it's a real nice shop mister, it'd be a real shame if something were to happen to it!
Which is all to say that soft power is still power, and as long as the government has explicit power of someone or something, it can exercise power implicitly. It doesn't actually need to regulate explicitly, because everyone knows they can do so if they want.
I think it's just a proxy argument for everything else, though. Art is the most obvious discussion point on that issue because it rarely has any practical value, only aesthetic or intellectual. A lump of iron has no value except that for which it can be used. But everything in between are various shades of grey. Even largely practical items like cars have a great deal of personal taste in their designs. What coffee machine you choose, what food you eat, what mouse you get for your computer. Aesthetics and what make us tick are different for all of us - and I still can't see a way home you don't end up with either the accrual of capital, or a situation whereby something other than the market is dictating prices.
Aye, but betting that the dice won't roll a hard 12 is a lot easier than saying it WILL roll a hard 2!
WayneMorse
Banned
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/dec/03/tories-behind-labour-level-with-ukip-key-marginals
UKIP doing well in polling of marginals but I really don't see them actually winning anything in 2015. They're the new BNP.
UKIP doing well in polling of marginals but I really don't see them actually winning anything in 2015. They're the new BNP.
Jezbollah
Member
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25213809
Services PMI down to 60 from October's 16 year high of 62.5. Still represents strong growth.
Add in Constructions PMI of 62.6 up from 59.4 in October as well as the manufactoring numbers I linked to a few posts up, and there is some thought that Q4 GDP will be 1%, up from 0.8% in the previous quarter.
Services PMI down to 60 from October's 16 year high of 62.5. Still represents strong growth.
Add in Constructions PMI of 62.6 up from 59.4 in October as well as the manufactoring numbers I linked to a few posts up, and there is some thought that Q4 GDP will be 1%, up from 0.8% in the previous quarter.
Nicktendo86
Member
Promising stuff, let's hope things keep up. Would be interested to hear what ZOMG thinks about the new data and how his bank is interpreting the data...
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Our proprietary index says 0.9% growth because oil and gas slowed down in November and October.
Our employment index is at a record level, and pay growth is rising. We have also started a new measure of disposable income growth/contraction for after tax earnings. A team is working on building a model and putting data since 2000 together so we can look at trend growth for this measure. The early signs are that people on the basic rate of tax have seen real terms falls in gross income, but a freeze in disposable income as tax adjustments make up a lot of the difference. They really need to get a handle on the minimum wage though, raise it by 5% this year to make up for lost time.
Our employment index is at a record level, and pay growth is rising. We have also started a new measure of disposable income growth/contraction for after tax earnings. A team is working on building a model and putting data since 2000 together so we can look at trend growth for this measure. The early signs are that people on the basic rate of tax have seen real terms falls in gross income, but a freeze in disposable income as tax adjustments make up a lot of the difference. They really need to get a handle on the minimum wage though, raise it by 5% this year to make up for lost time.
Nicktendo86
Member
Interesting, thanks for the insight as always. They listened to you with moving green subsidies from the energy bills to general taxation so maybe they will listen to the 5% minimum wage increase!
CyclopsRock
Member
Interesting, thanks for the insight as always. They listened to you with moving green subsidies from the energy bills to general taxation so maybe they will listen to the 5% minimum wage increase!
Even more excitingly, he's also suggested to Sony to get more PS4 units to the UK - do it!
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Interesting, thanks for the insight as always. They listened to you with moving green subsidies from the energy bills to general taxation so maybe they will listen to the 5% minimum wage increase!
Well it was an idea that a lot of people had because paying for green subsidies through bills unfairly penalises the poor so that multi-billion pound energy companies can invest with fewer risks.
The minimum wage is a really big point for me because it has a lot of positive connotations attached to it, not only will the working poor get a big bonus with incomes rising from £13,500 to £14,150 for a person working full time at the minimum wage. It will also rebalance the working equation so that it pays to work, even in a minimum wage position. Additionally with the tax free allowance set to rise by 2.8% it means tax yields will rise slightly as well, enough to offset a rise in business rates. Finally, raising the cost of labour will encourage more companies to hire British rather than foreign, with an expected influx of 350,000 Bulgarians and Romanians it is imperative that business is incentivised through the minimum wage to hire British workers who speak proper English, higher wages bring a higher level of expectations from employers.
WayneMorse
Banned
http://www.theguardian.com/politics...take-for-sale-government-assets-privatisation
Another day, another bargain bid privatization. What else is new?
I love how the Tories gave Brown so much shit for selling off the country's gold so cheaply but yet they sell off everything so cheaply.
Another day, another bargain bid privatization. What else is new?
I love how the Tories gave Brown so much shit for selling off the country's gold so cheaply but yet they sell off everything so cheaply.
CyclopsRock
Member
Shouldn't we see if anyone wants to buy it before saying it's cheap? They've already doubled the amount they intend to gain from privatisations.
WayneMorse
Banned
More from the autumn statement...
State pension age to be raised to 70 for today's young workers
yikes.
State pension age to be raised to 70 for today's young workers
yikes.
CyclopsRock
Member
In terms of my personal finances, I'm more or less going on the assumption that there won't be a public pension by the time they drag me from the workplace. If I do, excellent, I have some spare craps money.
Autumn statement in a few mins (I think):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/tv/bbc_parliament/watchlive
yup, now.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/tv/bbc_parliament/watchlive
yup, now.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Announcements so far.
Entrenchement of Keynesian economics into primary legislation. Effectively Labour's economic plans lay in ruin. Deficits in growth years are pretty much off the table.
Debt to GDP starts to fall from 2015/16.
Employers NI for under 21s is abolished. Big savings for bars and pubs in student cities.
Otherwise there wasn't really a lot. No big movement on the minimum wage which is disappointing.
Entrenchement of Keynesian economics into primary legislation. Effectively Labour's economic plans lay in ruin. Deficits in growth years are pretty much off the table.
Debt to GDP starts to fall from 2015/16.
Employers NI for under 21s is abolished. Big savings for bars and pubs in student cities.
Otherwise there wasn't really a lot. No big movement on the minimum wage which is disappointing.
CyclopsRock
Member
I think the minimum wage will come in the budget - the last one to really have a chance at impact before the election (by 2015 any pledges except immediate tax cuts will fail to make any difference I think).
They still have this goldilox problem as Nick Robinson just said on the BBC. Having the walk the fine line between saying it's going well and saying they still have a bunch to do.
They still have this goldilox problem as Nick Robinson just said on the BBC. Having the walk the fine line between saying it's going well and saying they still have a bunch to do.
No, sounds like a "lure the Yes vote win". If he's got anything planned for a later date, it's more likely to be "blame it on the English" than "fix it". What I've seen of the white paper reminds me more of Zhirinovsky than anyone else, with his promises of a sober husband for every Russian woman and free vodka for every Russian man...
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Yup, the biggest trap for Labour is the new debt charter it looks oddly like the fiskalpact that Dave vetoed in the EU earlier last year.
It forces the Treasury to prioritise lowering debt as a proportion of GDP for any future government, and in order to raise the figure the Chancellor of the day must go before Parliament and beg for mercy. Very shrewd political manoeuvring because the two Eds have signed up to the Government's spending envelope for 2015/16 but not after that, if they oppose this legislation in the HoC they will effectively be telling the nation they intend to throw away all of the government's hard won gains from 2016/17 onwards and go back to the bad old ways that led to the meltdown of our finances in the first place.
Deficit figures look a bit pessimistic, £111bn for this year is worse than our projection of £104bn, but the OBR have tended t be cautious on the deficit. Personally I would ignore everything past 2015/16 for growth and deficit figures, it's not really possible to forecast that far into the future with any measure of accuracy. Looking at the fan chart, we would be two notches lower than the OBR's line.
Hidden in the figures there are around £10bn worth of privatisation monies. That would take the government's stock of assets from around £650bn to £640bn. I guess they will use the money to fund infrastructure expansion.
Still reading through...
It forces the Treasury to prioritise lowering debt as a proportion of GDP for any future government, and in order to raise the figure the Chancellor of the day must go before Parliament and beg for mercy. Very shrewd political manoeuvring because the two Eds have signed up to the Government's spending envelope for 2015/16 but not after that, if they oppose this legislation in the HoC they will effectively be telling the nation they intend to throw away all of the government's hard won gains from 2016/17 onwards and go back to the bad old ways that led to the meltdown of our finances in the first place.
Deficit figures look a bit pessimistic, £111bn for this year is worse than our projection of £104bn, but the OBR have tended t be cautious on the deficit. Personally I would ignore everything past 2015/16 for growth and deficit figures, it's not really possible to forecast that far into the future with any measure of accuracy. Looking at the fan chart, we would be two notches lower than the OBR's line.
Hidden in the figures there are around £10bn worth of privatisation monies. That would take the government's stock of assets from around £650bn to £640bn. I guess they will use the money to fund infrastructure expansion.
Still reading through...
WayneMorse
Banned
I've read an article which had a quote from Tony Benn from around 2008/2009 saying that after Labour loses the election they'll be out of power for another two decades.
Everyday that prediction comes closer to being the truth.
The best thing Miliband can do now is sack Balls.
Everyday that prediction comes closer to being the truth.
The best thing Miliband can do now is sack Balls.
CyclopsRock
Member
He's one of those figures that seems to really struggle to convince people that don't like him that he's right. It's rare to have a politician who appeals across the aisles, but Balls is really, really the opposite to that. The only people he appeals to are those that already like him.
but who would he replace him with? Labour are really lacking talent since the bonfire of the Blarites. The worst thing they ever did was let Purnell go, I think; He was excellent. Liam Byrne, I guess? But his note will follow him forever.
WayneMorse
Banned
Right so basically this is exactly what happened in 1983, everyone thought Labour was going to win up until a year before the election when the economy turned around and Labour was led by weak leaders. History always repeats itself I guess.
The only good thing that could come out of 2015 now is for Cameron to be able to dump the Lib Dems and let Clegg slither back into the hole he came from.
The only good thing that could come out of 2015 now is for Cameron to be able to dump the Lib Dems and let Clegg slither back into the hole he came from.
Nicktendo86
Member
Post of the year
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
The economy can turn around in numerical terms but it doesn't mean that people's personal budgets are improving. It has to turn around in a manner that the everyday person can appreciate. There will - at the very least - be a lag time between economic improvement and individual improvement. A return to growth is not enough politically.
CyclopsRock
Member
They've already been fairly generous insomuch as their tax bracket changes have meant that whilst wages vs inflation suggests a real term reduction, the tax changes mean that people's actual in-bank income is rising faster than inflation (albeit only just). Which bodes well for a sack of goodies in the next two budgets. Do it, George - I want a PS4!
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Average disposable income has been rising because of tax band adjustments for people on the basic rate of tax. Gross income may have fallen slightly in real terms, but net income after tax has risen for a lot of people, and inflation has slowed down a lot in the last year or so leading to a small rise in disposable income. It is one of those cases where the headline statistic only tells half the story. Of course Labour prefer it that way, and there was a small pushback today from the Chancellor who specifically mentioned rising disposable income.
These are the figures:
Real household disposable income growth in %:
2012 1.6
2013 0.5
2014 1.1
2015 1.1
2016 2.1
2017 2.5
2018 2.6
Net of taxes people do have slightly more spending money than previously, but it's not really growing fast enough. That's why the government should have moved on the minimum wage today with an inflation busting rise. It's the best way to get money off a company's balance sheet and into the wider economy. People on lower incomes tend not to save much money so the extra £600-800 per person would get spent on goods and services which would lead to job creation and a cycle of positive reinforcement for economic growth as more people enter the work place and business confidence rises due to growing order books.
Really though, I understand why the Chancellor couldn't do it just yet. It's too far out from the election. This speech was all about destroying the career of Ed Balls and shifting the political narrative away from the idiotic energy policy crap towards the wider economy. I think it has been successful in doing that.
An idea someone at the office had which I think has merit, the government should introduce a new higher rate of tax (~40% vs 20%) for essential utility companies which is payable if they don't invest x% of their gross profit into Britain's infrastructure. Being a utility company in the UK is all too easy and shareholders have it easy, no risk easy returns. Another measure would be to have a special rate of dividend tax on essential utility shares to discourage shareholder returns and encourage investment. The government need to think outside of the subsidies box.
WayneMorse
Banned
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blo...britains-austerity-experiment-didnt-work.html
The New Yorker did a nice take down of the autumn statement.
The New Yorker did a nice take down of the autumn statement.
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
CHEEZMO;92917810 said:
As I understand it the MPs cant stop the pay rise because it is set by the IPSA.
Jezbollah
Member
The opposition to the rise is a typical (and pretty much the only) response for this rise.
If it's going to happen regardless, of course all politicians are going to say that they oppose it - people still have fresh memories of the expense saga (yet some haven't realised the rises are in lieu of expenses being virtually culled).
WayneMorse - what nationality are you? Just curious.
If it's going to happen regardless, of course all politicians are going to say that they oppose it - people still have fresh memories of the expense saga (yet some haven't realised the rises are in lieu of expenses being virtually culled).
WayneMorse - what nationality are you? Just curious.
CHEEZMO
Obsidian fan
I'm sure they're as distraught about it as they are with the explosion of food banks
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
I don't disagree with you, in general Cheezmo, but the two points - rising rates of poverty/food bank use and MP's salaries - are not connected. MP's wages are rising as a result of an independent body making decisions on the matter, food bank usage is rising due to a failure to effectively redistribute wealth in a manner suitable for all of society.
CHEEZMO
Obsidian fan
I know they aren't; it's called juxtaposition.
Since I'm making a post I might as well link this which I was just reading http://libcom.org/library/work-community-politics-war-prole
Since I'm making a post I might as well link this which I was just reading http://libcom.org/library/work-community-politics-war-prole
CyclopsRock
Member
It's pretty ridiculous that it's not in the power of parliament to set their own salaries. If they're not setting them, then the electorate have absolutely no ability to impact it at all.
Edit: the poverty thing is, as always, a bit of a red herring. Firstly, it's unfortunate that the BBC lead with that headline rather than "child poverty was at its lowest level for 25 years" or "the overall poverty rate in the UK expressed as a proportion of the population was 21% - the second lowest since reliable official statistics began to be collected in the mid-1990s". But more importantly, poverty (as it's measured in this country, ie relatively) means that you're either in poverty or you're not. Which is ridonkulous and leads to the sort of statistical money-bombing that Brown was famous for, whereby he's target tax changes to help those just under the treshold jump to just above it, effectively getting the best statistics for the least amount of money. Child and Working tax credits were designed for this exact purpose, basically. Unfortunately what it meant was that the people who would require HUGE tax credits in order to no longer be in poverty (which is obviously all but impossible when using a relative means of determining poverty) were forgotten and ignored because for the same money you could "lift" 10 others out of poverty; people who likely didn't know they were considered in poverty, or otherwise weren't aware that they'd been subsequently lifted out of poverty. The workplace currently is sufficiently flexible - as we've seen by the increased number of part time and contract jobs - that the labour market can support more people albeit underemployed. This has the effect of meaning that there are more people just under the 60% threshold, but less people WAY under it. I'm also not convinced that their report takes into account the tax changes, and I'm not sure what they mean by "after housing costs". I think the 60% relative poverty figure is an unhelpfully blunt instrument.
Edit: the poverty thing is, as always, a bit of a red herring. Firstly, it's unfortunate that the BBC lead with that headline rather than "child poverty was at its lowest level for 25 years" or "the overall poverty rate in the UK expressed as a proportion of the population was 21% - the second lowest since reliable official statistics began to be collected in the mid-1990s". But more importantly, poverty (as it's measured in this country, ie relatively) means that you're either in poverty or you're not. Which is ridonkulous and leads to the sort of statistical money-bombing that Brown was famous for, whereby he's target tax changes to help those just under the treshold jump to just above it, effectively getting the best statistics for the least amount of money. Child and Working tax credits were designed for this exact purpose, basically. Unfortunately what it meant was that the people who would require HUGE tax credits in order to no longer be in poverty (which is obviously all but impossible when using a relative means of determining poverty) were forgotten and ignored because for the same money you could "lift" 10 others out of poverty; people who likely didn't know they were considered in poverty, or otherwise weren't aware that they'd been subsequently lifted out of poverty. The workplace currently is sufficiently flexible - as we've seen by the increased number of part time and contract jobs - that the labour market can support more people albeit underemployed. This has the effect of meaning that there are more people just under the 60% threshold, but less people WAY under it. I'm also not convinced that their report takes into account the tax changes, and I'm not sure what they mean by "after housing costs". I think the 60% relative poverty figure is an unhelpfully blunt instrument.
Well the government announcing that the green taxes will be cut from the energy companies without explaining how the money will be replaced has caused the price of carbon to freefall...
Tens of thousands potentially getting laid off before Christmas. Fucking nice one, why do they announce this stuff without a full explanation?
Tens of thousands potentially getting laid off before Christmas. Fucking nice one, why do they announce this stuff without a full explanation?
CyclopsRock
Member
And they have Teddy Sherringham up front and Seaman in goal.