State of the parties as 2015 General Election looms.

[MrGongGong]

Branson et al are required because wealth cannot be created without entrepreneurs.

et al ?

Who's Al in this context?

[Beef Oven!]

I somehow suspect that, for this to happen, there would first need to bebuilt many more prisons and courtrooms, although in the present austerity climatge, I;ve less than no idea who'd pay for this.


That's broadly true, but the problem here is that so many students emerge from university with five-figure debts (I happen to know wone personally who ran up a six-figure one over almost a decade of study and several degees to his name), which is hardly a good thing given that some will be unable ever to repay them and many others will struggle to try to do so in the early years of their professional lives.

Of course the ensuing debt is an issue. I'd have swapped it out for a pointless, unwindable referendum on Alternative Vote. But Clegg and other LibeDems put the party first and ignored the people.

[Beef Oven!]

In what way does the EU promote a longer-term approach to things like environmental issues? I don't think it does. But if you believe it does surely that would be a reason for supporting it...?

It's not the only thing that one puts into the balance when deciding on one's position on the EU.

[Beef Oven!]

et al ?

Who's Al in this context?

In this context it's 'others'. Strange question.

[ahinton]

It's not my claim, it's more or less a universally held truth. A dwindling number of Marxists dispute it of course.

That capitalism "continues to be so successful at reducing world poverty"? Really? Could you supply some credible an incontrovertible evidence for your assertion that it is a "(more or less)...universally held truth"? - and indeed that only a "dwindling number of Marxists dispute it"? I dispute it strongly - and I am not and have never been a Marxist, dwindling or otherse.

I agree with you that there is an element of short-termism and too many politicians do not put the bigger picture first. But the EU does, The WHO does and so on. So I'd say that we shouldn't exaggerate the problem.

All true, indeed - but the problem should not only not be exaggerated but also not ignored; as you appear to accept, too much short-termism in too many high places is a bad thing for us all.

Again, you are exaggerating the issue, describing it as a defining feature.

I think that this is less of an exaggeration than an understatement to the extent that it has become a "defining feature" not only of "neoliberal capitalism" but also one of almost everyone.

Branson et al are required because wealth cannot be created without entrepreneurs.

Yes - but "required" by whom - in terms, that is, of who gets to benefit from the wealth that they generate? Of course I'm not suggesting that no one does besides the wealth creatos themslves and their closest cronies, but what matters most is what happens to all that wealth, where it goes and what's done with it.

[ahinton]

et al ?

Who's Al in this context?

Not me, guv, that's for certain!

[Richard Barrett]

It's not the only thing that one puts into the balance when deciding on one's position on the EU.

Yes but in what way doe it promote a longer-term approach to things like environmental issues? How can it possibly do so when its member governments are enslaved to the electoral cycle?

[Beef Oven!]

That capitalism "continues to be so successful at reducing world poverty"? Really? Could you supply some credible an incontrovertible evidence for your assertion that it is a "(more or less)...universally held truth"? - and indeed that only a "dwindling number of Marxists dispute it"? I dispute it strongly - and I am not and have never been a Marxist, dwindling or otherse.

You're doing that Viz Mr Logic thing again, stop it, it's unnerving.

All true, indeed - but the problem should not only not be exaggerated but also not ignored; as you appear to accept, too much short-termism in too many high places is a bad thing for us all.

Yes.

I think that this is less of an exaggeration than an understatement to the extent that it has become a "defining feature" not only of "neoliberal capitalism" but also one of almost everyone.

Then, surely it cannot be a defining feature of "neoliberal capitalism" if it is one of those universally held truths, that you don't like, applicable to almost everyone.

Yes - but "required" by whom - in terms, that is, of who gets to benefit from the wealth that they generate? Of course I'm not suggesting that no one does besides the wealth creatos themslves and their closest cronies, but what matters most is what happens to all that wealth, where it goes and what's done with it.

No. What matters most is that it lifts poor people out of poverty.

[Beef Oven!]

Yes but in what way doe it promote a longer-term approach to things like environmental issues? How can it possibly do so when its member governments are enslaved to the electoral cycle?

Sustainable energy, and so on.

[P. G. Tipps]

Branson et al are required because wealth cannot be created without entrepreneurs.

Absolutely and without millions of private sector workers as well.

Saying we need more nurses and firemen without also seeing the initial need to create wealth to pay their wages is the thing that some socialists often seem to forget. The private sector is best-placed to create that wealth with its culture of risk-taking, inventive change and profit-making.

The State can and does take a large slice of that profit for public services so the greater the wealth the more nurses and firemen it can employ!

[MrGongGong]

So OXOboy
You really do believe that Alan Sugar makes his money so that he can "lift people out of poverty" ?
I don't think so
It might be a side effect of some of his "activity" but that's not what motivates.
There are many other people who run their affairs in much more ethical and sustainable ways

Barn the Spoon for President

[ahinton]

You're doing that Viz Mr Logic thing again, stop it, it's unnerving.

I don't understand what you mean by that; sorry!

Then, surely it cannot be a defining feature of "neoliberal capitalism" if it is one of those universally held truths, that you don't like, applicable to almost everyone.

But it isn't and I did not suggest that it is! It is NOT a truth and, sadly, it is now widely, though not universally held. A widely held untruth is obviously not synonymnous with a universally held truth!

No. What matters most is that it lifts poor people out of poverty.

If it all did that, there would surely be evidence to prove it and such evidence would not likely be especiallyhard to find; whilst I'm not for one moment suggesting that none of it has ever lifted anyone at all out of poverty, you could surely be forgiven for assuming that, with such a lot of it about, there would no longer be the still widespread poverty that's evidenced by food banks and the like in so-called "developed" countries and the even worse poverty still widely experienced in less developed and often poorly and corruptly run ones.

[ahinton]

Sustainable energy, and so on.

And I'm all for it, but there's ample evidence of squabbling, differences of opinion and retractions on this in addition to the fact that progress on it is indeed by nature and definition a very long term issue that is quite simply not easily amenable to the enslavement to the electoral cycle that Richard mentions.

[ahinton]

Saying we need more nurses and firemen without also seeing the initial need to create wealth to pay their wages is the thing that some socialists often seem to forget.

But I'm not a socialist and I dont forget it; my concern here is nevertheless that if a large proportion of such wealth creation helps but little towards the training and engagement of more of those people whom society needs, the "need" for those welath creators in that context is thereby undermined and compromised.

[MrGongGong]

Sustainable energy, and so on.

The free market will never develop sustainable energy while you can make more money selling oil.
Many of the things we really value would be destroyed by your wonderful "entrepreneurs" trying to make a quick profit.