Desires for things like Self development were really things which were coming up around the time we moved to neo liberalism. You have to have a certain level of security before you can even think of that. People were fighting for rights for a long time and were helped when Jews arrived from Russia and came with ideas of trade unions - another thing which are necessary in a Capitalist democracy and something which we do not have of a sufficient strength to do its job. The concern from the establishment was that after the French Revolution we would go that way too and they would lose their heads. Things did not improve after WW1 for the soldiers who had fought in it as you will know. Once again the establishment were scared of revolution and from there we got ideas of the Welfare State and eventually with much regret Full Suffrage. Prior to WW2 I hear our economic system was similar to today. It was understood that that had given rise to fascism and so it was worked out that we had to do away with Monopolies and have strong regulations on Capital. Even the US did this. If you are a democracy and you let Capital become too strong, Monopolies then they are able to make the Government do what they want instead of being as they should be subject to the will of the people. That is where we are now.
I do not agree that this is what is going on. Prior to neo Liberalism we had inflation. This helped the poorer people. Buy a house for 5% interest and inflation went up to 10% - house bought. At this time those in debt were in the more beneficial position. It was good for those in debt. Neo Liberalism and particularly after the 2008 crash changed that. Now the people with all the cards are the fattest creditors and the ordinary person's life does not improve at all. Indeed it gets worse. Debts are never paid off because wages are not rising and the standard of life gets worse because we are told we can have nothing because we have over spent - the only people we over spent on was those very same bankers after their gambling. You are saying you have a degree in economics? Might depend on when you took it how much you know. Blyth is a political economist so not just dry economics. He says people do economics degrees and are taught nothing!!!! I am not saying that was you but if you were taught neo liberal economics it may very well be. I trust you were taught to be critical. I get the idea this is not so with neo liberal economics. My degree was in the Social Sciences. What we can know is what has been happening. How we have moved into the situation we are now. Who it is serving. Who it is hurting...and it is serving the 0.1% and basically hurting everyone else but particularly the most poor. We need a new economic system. It appears that politicians get quite a few bits of cakes for doing what is required by the people they serve - never mind the £100,000 they get on leaving for a one hour lecture! I will try and give you some of the information from Blyths lecture 'Neo liberalism as the Universal asset. First the problem is inflation so it eats through all of the structures which protect Labour, so that Labour gets the short end of the stick and we end up generating a banking crises to keep the whole thing afloat. The next thing it does is exactly the same to product markets so that most businesses couldn't raise wages even if they wanted to. and then Politics. The Parties we have are not ones born under neo Liberalism (except maybe in France) They were invented at the end of WW2. These parties were there to stabilise and make work a closed system of economies. This died in the 1980's and they reinvented themselves eg new Labour.' Their only interest was power. Even in Labour's defeat that is what I hear them talking about. How do we get power again. For good reason no one believes them any more - all they are are servants of the 0.1% and so we see the rise in populism....that is why you have people encouraged to wanting to leave the EU. What happens next? Now this is our current economic system working 'Growth becomes critically dependent on returns to finance Finance is constructed by structurally low rates Debt reduction is constrained by low inflation Sustained wage growth fails to materialise Ever higher levels of inequality and sharper urban/rural divides appear Skill bias in labour markets accentuates. The 'bailed' regime becomes politically unsustainable-- Centre Parties become unsustainable. Neo Nationalists become the winners.' Taken from Mark Blyth - Global Trumpism and the future of the Global Economy. ( find on Youtube. He does not speak in an intellectual way. Is easy to listen to.) That is where the system of neo liberalism has taken us. There may be any GDP but our debt/ deficits and what not keep going up and working people are not getting any benefit, their standard of living is diminishing and they are open to the scapegoating of the problem - in this case the EU (and immigrants). With technology jobs will get less and less and working people have nothing to defend themselves. We can look at what it has done and how it continues to work. This gives a good idea. Indeed the way it is set up is only to work in that way - and to have no genuine democracy which is why people are now moving to the hard right. I agree with that apart from the seeming violent bit at the beginning . The UK got to veto what it did not want and had other advantages which really makes the arguments for leaving ridiculous. The main reasons I had for staying was concern about Europe disintegrating into ethnic nationalist states and a repeat of the 30's. It is giving up a massive amount especially if it is done on a hard deal level which I think is probably still going to happen, Boris has not given enough time to get a decent deal. However I could also have been open to leaving given that it is not possible to escape neo liberalism due to the EU's rules on State spending. Mine would have been a very soft brexit though. It certainly doesn't look good to me for the people of England. It looks like they will just be ruled by the US and have far less autonomy than they did as Brits in the EU. On many other levels also it looks highly dangerous. It is not something I want to stay a part of.
PS. Chris Hedges says if you want to get Government to change and work for the people you have to get them scared. That is what happened in the US in the 30's before New Deal and that is what happened before the Welfare State, full democracy and so on was brought in in Britain. At the moment however, they seem to be running the show. I do not see Boris as really doing anything except what he wants and manipulating people to woo him. I mean talk of being the 'people's Government' is just such an authoritarian strategy If the British people get together for something which is for the common good and manage to frighten Government, then there may be positive change which can benefit all. At the moment I see no sign of it but it was what Jeremy was trying to offer.
Bollocks! It is the central fact that describes the present political-instance in the US. The one that concerns us most if we want to keep any semblance of a True Democracy. Which due to Gerrymandering and the Electoral College, we have never really had. Politics in America today is throwing one liner sarcasm via political adverts on the BoobTube. And it works! Truly the boob-tube because we Yanks watch more hours-per-week of TV than any other country on earth. It is no wonder at all that at the 2010-midterms we Yanks stoopidly voted the HofR over to the Replicants - who then stonewalled any further spending to stop the job-rot that had occurred from the Great Recession. They hoped that they could undo the Obama presidency in 2012. Did they ever get that wrong, as they have in most matters of political import. The American political electorate is presently wedded still to an arcane idea of a wonderful democracy of the people. How they can have been so unconcerned by the voting-manipulations in America is beyond belief or explanation* ... *Well, maybe not. Our Civics instruction in state high-schools is a shambles.
Yes, I have a degree in economics - for what that is worth. I think that what is meant is that one learns the rudiments of economic theory, but their application leaves much to be desired. Economics is truly more an "art" than it is a "science". (Though I must admit, to make economics come alive in this forum, I use graphics to show what-in-heaven's-name-is-really-going-on!) Economics does not consider, really, the political side of decision-making at the top-most levels of national governance. Which is why most such "political action" is far too late. The damage is done by a mean attempt at manipulating the political-will to maintain power in the Executive and Legislative parts of government. The SubPrime mess and resulting Great Recession should be a cogent lesson in how NOT to react to an economic disaster. Did we learn anything? Apparently not, because though the recession started in 2007/8, Uncle Sam did not start creating jobs once again until October 2013 - SIX LONG YEARS LATER. All by himself, without any further governmental spending applied! (See BLS historical graphic here.) It was the Left-wing economists who were persidently prodding politicians to "spend more", but nobody but the Dems were listening. And the Replicants had a tight-rein on HofR spending ...
WE-THE-SHEEPLE Yes, that is an historical fact. But, I don't think that should be any background for political change. What it takes, and you've got it in Britain and we don't in America, is the notion of "We, the people". (What I call, "we-the-sheeple.) We-the sheeple DO NOT DESERVE - *To be fleeced by insufficient upper-income taxation-dictates that make the rich wildly richer. (Without us, there would be no millionaires and no billionaires!) *Whilst the Poverty-Threshold incarcerates 14% of the population. From off the net: Which is, btw, about the population of California - the largest populated US state. (See here.) And, NO!, I am not saying we fleece the super-rich and give it to the poor. I am proposing this however: *As before JFK reduced upper-income taxation from the 90% range (LBJ actually signed the bill), we put taxation back up into that range. (And no finagling-the-rule tax exemptions!) *We build a taxation-system from the Minimum Wage up to the 90% range that gets greater as the income range grows up to that range. (All earning a MW below $15/hour must declare income-taxation but pay only $100 in taxes.) *And the national tax-income is spent firstly upon a National Healthcare System and free Tertiary-education. (And Defense can go take a long walk on thin ice!)
[/quote] Democracy is of course the best way to resolve such problems. While yes, in practice we still have the opportunity to vote, democracy is a thing of the past in the UK. We see the people of Eton back in their normal place ruling the minions. However neither Chris Hedges or I would be suggesting making violence would be what made that Government listen to the people. Them and XR understand that the quickest way you give Government more power over you is violence. They clearly have the stronger power to wage against you. Rather what is necessary are things like making friends with the police while you are protesting and getting your word about. Once the Government starts thinking the Institutions which protect them may turn with the people they are open to doing what is needed. Since the election I have heard English people speaking of resistance. I do not understand why you believe the situation is any different in the UK to the US regarding democracy. Neo Liberalism destroyed it in both places though obviously you never had complete democracy in the US despite invading countries to force them to become democratic.
Ours are not from Hah-vahd but nonetheless this present cut-throat administration is corrupt. Along with a Senate that is equally corrupt. And no, I do not blame the people, who have not the best education as regards Civics-classes. (Which simply repeats the basics and glosses over the west. Yes, teachers probably mention the Electoral College - but I doubt they recite the history that mistakenly was behind its creation in 1812. When the South was determined to keep its slaves and the North sided with the Europe that had largely decided that slavery was against God's will. Yes, once again God was used to "play politics". It's a recurrent factor in American politics. As elsewhere, btw. Brexit is "resistance" in the UK? (Against what? Common sense? ;^) Yours is still a multiparty system. Yes, the centrists Social Democrats occupy the middle-ground but do not count for much in between the further apart Right and Left (Corbyn & Co.) But, here in the US we have masterminded a "Plan": *No third party. Only two. *Then we employ gerrymandering of state/national legislature-votes as well as the idiocy of "winner-takes-all-votes" in the presidential election of the state Electoral Colleges - which themselves are not correctly aligned with actual state-populations. Which makes the EC vote looked warped - like this: Anybody who calls that above a "popular-vote democracy" needs their head-examined ... PS: I note that most (and not all) "new immigrants" into the US vote democrat. I am convinced that - because of their background of poverty - they vote Democrat. They have no other choice. But in doing so, I suspect they really decide middle-ground elections. Is it the same in the UK?
I could have taken an economics module as part of my degree but chose not to - something which I later regretted. Maybe you would have found the politics part helpful. I was listening to a discussion about economics when the people said that to study economics without politics is just crazy. They go hand in hand and so belong on a social/political science degree rather than by themselves.. At the same time I am aware that in one of the earlier lectures of Mark Blyth I watched he said, or maybe it was Richard Wolf, but one of them said that nowadays when people study economics they just are not taught anything about economics. They are taught how economics of the day, that is neo liberal economics work but even there they were only taught how to do it not an understanding of it. In that way they are not given the knowledge to see the picture and try and make constructive changes.. or possibly not to put in an economic system which will result in this. It has totally changed everything. Now the Super Rich demand all the time that there is no risk to them. It just was the truth that Neo Liberal economics does not work and we are seeing this and most people are expecting another massive depression in the next two years which we will not be able to get out of. Of course the US started printing money to help itself after 2008. The US is able to do things other countries cannot do because it is the Reserve currency. I think it is going to be a massive downturn for the US when that falls away which to be honest people will do asap first because of Trump's bullying of the world because it has the reserve and second because the US under Trump is intent on destroying the planet. Austerity I hear does not get you out of a recession, it just increases your debt and opens the door to fascism. Spending would be the way most likely to get the situation moving except this economic system is finished and those involved in it know that. I think it is just gambling on the hedge funds and stock markets which they now make money from. Brexit being possibly their biggest gamble to date. We, the world are not in a stable situation on so many levels including economic and those with the power are fighting to keep power and I really think do not give a thought to anyone but their own. Was listening to someone being interviewed about democracy the other day. He was rolling over laughing. He said we do not have democracy and have not had democracy for a long time. He believes democracy will always lead to Oligarchy or plutocracy. I still believe that democracy will work with capitalism but only if it is social democracy. That is regulations are put in and Corporations are not allowed to run off with our Governments. An article from the London school of Economics suggested that one of the reasons it was so hard for May to work on Brexit is because we have sold off so much of our Government to private people that we could not even find the stuff we needed. For a very long time I have felt we were moving into a new kind of Aristocracy. That this should be in chaos at a time when if we do not move together and fast there will be no world for the young to inhabit is sort of a joke I guess. We need to find the way out by using the democratic values we still have while there is still time.
.....I always thought that Economics and Criminology would be a better duo - they go well together - the study of legitimised quantifiable fraud....anyway....sorry to interupt....
Here is an excellent video in which Nick Hanauer who says he is not one of the 1%, he is one of the 0.1% speaks about Neo Liberalism and how it has harmed humanity. We need to look at the psychological basis on which neo liberalism was created. It was I think Freedman though it may have been Hayek who considered we were all little Robinson Crusoe's who cared for no one but ourselves. He described it like this 'Imagine you are walking down the road with three friends and you find a ten dollar Bill. Do you share it with your friends? Of course not. You put it in your pocket and carry on.' He was speaking of himself and the mentality of those who invented Neo Liberalism based on the premise that all people are selfish and greed is good. This has been working extremely destructively over the last 40 years till we now find ourselves in the situation we are in which I think is psychologically one of the worst we have ever been in. No! Humans are not by nature nothing but selfish - unless they have severe psychological problems as did the creators of Neo Liberalism. Hanauer points out that Empirical evidence shows that far from human beings being totally selfish, (which I would imagine is a trait of those with psychopathic tendencies who have no empathy,) one of our strongest traits is our ability to be co-operative and to give reciprocally and he argues that neo liberalism destroys this and by so doing destroys the economy which leads to the most destructive outcomes. He gives climate change and the 2008 crash saying that they are easy to spot. There is no question in my mind that we are losing the best traits on humanity while following this religion of selfishness. He then talks about how Universities are trying to work out a new economic system which he says has 5 rules. 1. Economics is not a jungle. It is a garden which needs to be looked after. There must be social or democratic regulation or it will just go crazy. 2. Including people in more ways, raising wages does not stop economic growth. It is what causes it. 3. is not the business of Corporations just to look after the best interests of their shareholders. They can and must look after the wellbeing of all their people - that includes customers and workers. 4.Being rapacious is not being capitalist it is being a sociopath....and in an economy as dependent on cooperation as ours sociopathy in economics is as bad as it is in general. 5. Our economic system is a choice. It has been sold to people as 'unchangeable natural law' when it is social norms and constructive social narratives which can and need to be changed. If we want new economics all we have to do is choose for it to be so. He is a capitalist so his way out or new economic system would be capitalist. Of fundamental importance to it is recognising what psychologists know which is that one of the fundamental strengths of humans is our ability to co-operate and act in a reciprocal manner - something which Neo Liberalism due to its reliance on the sick people who created it did not get. It is a simple, clear and easy to understand video LafayetteBiss, please have a look and tell me what you think bec ause as I see it now if we do not make some changes pretty quick we have had it and the Number one thing needing changed is our economic system.
Sure and Psychology, Political Sociology, Political Philosophy and loads of other things along with Criminology which are options on a social science course. We chose 4 modules. The basic argument they made was that it was impossible to study economics on its own.
They are taught a mathematical approach to understanding an economic context of national Supply&Demand. These two elements are the basic rudiments of any country's economic context in any given point-in-time. (Meaning past-present-future.) Mathematics however will never likely be able to predict human behaviour. And when we get beyond the numbers ... well, then, everything changes and political-sentiment takes control of our outlook. An example: If GDP flounders and incites precarious levels of unemployment, then, yes, we might say, "Well, some stimulation is necessary". And the country should adopt such. But, then, even if the answer lies in boosting the economy by means of government expenditure, that simple observation does not mean it WILL get done. We saw that in 2010 when Obama had successfully stopped the exploding unemployment rate by means of government spending - but the American public brought the Replicants into control of the HofR and they stymied any further spending. Why? In order maintain growth-stagnation in the economy, which they supposed would help them win a presidential election two-years later (that would presumably replace Obama with a Replicant PotUS). But it did not happen that way, did it? So, for a further four long years, the economy did not create any new jobs and unemployment rates remained consistently high. Then, "abracadabra" the American consumer got fed-up with the process and started spending once again. Which sparked job-creation and a serious turn to lower levels of unemployment. So, you see, economics is one facet of the problem but the real solution is almost always of a political nature (ie. government spending). Today, the EU is in just such a situation. Unemployment has come down drastically in the EU, but the collective-economies are not spending enough to avoid another possible downturn. Time will tell - with the exception of GB, which is almost certain to be whammed seriouly by an economic downturn regardless of what the Blond-Bloke thinks is his "magic solution" ...
