Digby wrote:
How does one raise funds for investment if money can't earn money? Is not the point of investing is to achieve a return on the investment? And you mayn't like some aspects of the primary and secondary markets when it comes to ownership, and transfer of ownership in capital but they prove useful for such things as pension funds for ordinary working people, bringing in investment, creating democracy of ownership... and not just for feathering the nest of the rich.
I'd understand an argument that wanted to see a lot more wealth made available to business investment, even to tax revenues, and certainly not to see the top 1% acquire still more wealth, I mayn't agree on all points looking to achieve such but I would at least understand it. However to go from that to money shouldn't earn money is baffling, it'd seem just much easier to look at taxing wealth if you wanted to seek a redistribution, but what's the model that should be sought if one considers all returns on investment usury transactions and that usury transactions should be banned?
Nearly all business investment is funded by bank loans these days.
There is a huge difference between rent seeking and investment.
As a keen student of Keynes and his work, you'd know that he spoke of euthanasia of the rentier.
Well yes we do use banks to make investments, though the secrets hardly out on that one. And whilst you may assign some morale value to some types of investment over others, and perhaps reasonably so at times, all investment seeks a return else it's just charity, and the systems we have in place which allow for the rent seeking provide liquidity to the investment side.
And yes I've read the odd bit of Keynes, and yes he had issues around the rentier, and inflation, and demand and full employment and so on. But it should be acknowledged that part of what's driving such thinking is not wanting the proles to rise up and seek to install a socialist state. Keynes wants the proles kept busy, kept happy, of course with a chance to progress and towards some notion of social fairness, but also so they don't mess up his nice lifestyle nor that of his equals - which by the by isn't a million miles away from Aristotle.
The point was that the rent seekers aren't funding investment as you claimed.
And I note that you've made the claim again.
Whilst Keynes was no socialist, his motives can't be so casually described as the selfishness you imply.
His thoughts on full employment aren't at all about 'keeping the prols busy'. So no. I'm not acknowledging your claim.
He also said this, which seems relevant.
“Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men for the nastiest of motives will somehow work together for the benefit of all.”
As for the maths. There are mathematic 'theories' on both sides, they are not the same as mathematical facts. I asked for maths.
UGagain wrote:
Nearly all business investment is funded by bank loans these days.
There is a huge difference between rent seeking and investment.
As a keen student of Keynes and his work, you'd know that he spoke of euthanasia of the rentier.
Well yes we do use banks to make investments, though the secrets hardly out on that one. And whilst you may assign some morale value to some types of investment over others, and perhaps reasonably so at times, all investment seeks a return else it's just charity, and the systems we have in place which allow for the rent seeking provide liquidity to the investment side.
And yes I've read the odd bit of Keynes, and yes he had issues around the rentier, and inflation, and demand and full employment and so on. But it should be acknowledged that part of what's driving such thinking is not wanting the proles to rise up and seek to install a socialist state. Keynes wants the proles kept busy, kept happy, of course with a chance to progress and towards some notion of social fairness, but also so they don't mess up his nice lifestyle nor that of his equals - which by the by isn't a million miles away from Aristotle.
The point was that the rent seekers aren't funding investment as you claimed.
And I note that you've made the claim again.
Whilst Keynes was no socialist, his motives can't be so casually described as the selfishness you imply.
His thoughts on full employment aren't at all about 'keeping the prols busy'. So no. I'm not acknowledging your claim.
He also said this, which seems relevant.
“Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men for the nastiest of motives will somehow work together for the benefit of all.”
Sandydragon wrote:
Out of interest, do you regard Eagle as being on the left of the Labour Party, or is she a blairite? Genuine question, opinion seems split amongst people I talk to.
I think she's a repellant non-entity with no policies or principles who is on her way to an ignominious deselection.
...a Blairite then.
Eagle has voted in favour of the party’s right-wing, pro-business and militarist agenda on every central issue. She famously voted in favour of the Iraq war in 2003. But in addition, according to the They Work For You website, she has “consistently voted against an investigation into the Iraq war,” in September 2014 voted in favour of air strikes in Iraq, in December 2015 voted in favour of air strikes in Syria, supports the retention of the Trident nuclear weapons programme, has “generally voted for a stricter asylum system,” voted in favour of increased university tuition fees, supported the Blair government’s 2006 plan to detain terrorism suspects for up to 90 days without charge, and abstained on the vote on the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition’s 2013 workfare programme and on the vote for the 2015 Welfare Bill.
Her candidacy was planned in secret by the Blairites and Brownites weeks before it was announced. She had even commissioned a website, “Angela for leader”, days before she announced her resignation from Corbyn’s shadow cabinet with tears in her eyes for the cameras.
UGagain wrote:
I think she's a repellant non-entity with no policies or principles who is on her way to an ignominious deselection.
...a Blairite then.
Eagle has voted in favour of the party’s right-wing, pro-business and militarist agenda on every central issue. She famously voted in favour of the Iraq war in 2003. But in addition, according to the They Work For You website, she has “consistently voted against an investigation into the Iraq war,” in September 2014 voted in favour of air strikes in Iraq, in December 2015 voted in favour of air strikes in Syria, supports the retention of the Trident nuclear weapons programme, has “generally voted for a stricter asylum system,” voted in favour of increased university tuition fees, supported the Blair government’s 2006 plan to detain terrorism suspects for up to 90 days without charge, and abstained on the vote on the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition’s 2013 workfare programme and on the vote for the 2015 Welfare Bill.
Her candidacy was planned in secret by the Blairites and Brownites weeks before it was announced. She had even commissioned a website, “Angela for leader”, days before she announced her resignation from Corbyn’s shadow cabinet with tears in her eyes for the cameras.
Eagle herself faces a vote of no confidence in her local Wallasey Constituency Labour Party, which has swelled from 900 members before June 24 to 1,200 today.
As for the maths. There are mathematic 'theories' on both sides, they are not the same as mathematical facts. I asked for maths.
The 'money supply' is not controlled. It can't be because it is a function of numerous factors out of the control of any single entity or group.
Yet we don't have hyperinflation.
Except the government could print more paper money, which was the point Zhivago was making.
a) Why aren't you up in arms at Quantitative Easing?
b) Print is so anachronistic - modern money is credit in 1s and 0s - electronic. Just a term, don't get hung up on it.
c) Money supply is not controlled at the moment - money supply is endogenous and is created in response to demand for loans, by private banks. This demand is mostly not investment, but speculation or desire for basic necessities such as housing. Most of the money created at the moment is created for speculation. It's highly damaging to the economy.
d) Have you not heard of the idea of helicopter money? It's something mainstream economists are starting to consider now. But you are still living in the past mainstream because you are an unthinking believer of orthodox ideology.
Sandydragon wrote:Relative poverty is s nonsense, the only measure should be absolute poverty.
On the contrary. Relative poverty measures are a good indicator of how well people in the lower deciles of the income range are able to participate in any meaningful way in society.
As for the maths. There are mathematic 'theories' on both sides, they are not the same as mathematical facts. I asked for maths.
Eugene Wrayburn wrote:Anyway, back on topic. The NEC says Corbyn can stand - on the report of the rules that seemed inevitable and I'm mystified that someone apparently thought otherwise.
The anti - Corbyn votes currently look to be split.
The election rules look bizarrely complicated as to who can vote, but the headline is that £25 is now the cost of entryism.
They use AV
Good point well made. In which case they've probably got the optimal number of candidates to get rid of him.
I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
Eugene Wrayburn wrote:Anyway, back on topic. The NEC says Corbyn can stand - on the report of the rules that seemed inevitable and I'm mystified that someone apparently thought otherwise.
The anti - Corbyn votes currently look to be split.
The election rules look bizarrely complicated as to who can vote, but the headline is that £25 is now the cost of entryism.
They use AV
Good point well made. In which case they've probably got the optimal number of candidates to get rid of him.
Well McTernan is backing Owen Smith and he's never been right about anything.
I don't think they have any rabbits to pull out of their hats.
JC has the overwhelming support of the membership.
As for the maths. There are mathematic 'theories' on both sides, they are not the same as mathematical facts. I asked for maths.
Eugene Wrayburn wrote:Anyway, back on topic. The NEC says Corbyn can stand - on the report of the rules that seemed inevitable and I'm mystified that someone apparently thought otherwise.
The anti - Corbyn votes currently look to be split.
The election rules look bizarrely complicated as to who can vote, but the headline is that £25 is now the cost of entryism.
They use AV
Good point well made. In which case they've probably got the optimal number of candidates to get rid of him.
Slight problem that the options being run against him aren't the big hitters, Cooper and Burnham may have blown their chance with the inept campaign Vs Corbyn, I can't say I much to take the Balls, but they need a Jarvis or Umunna to make them relevant again
Good point well made. In which case they've probably got the optimal number of candidates to get rid of him.
Slight problem that the options being run against him aren't the big hitters, Cooper and Burnham may have blown their chance with the inept campaign Vs Corbyn, I can't say I much to take the Balls, but they need a Jarvis or Umunna to make them relevant again
It's kind of funny to see Tories demanding that Labour select closet Tories to make them 'relevant'.
Labour doesn't need to be relevant to you, buddy. You're a Tory.
Labour needs to be relevant to labour. Your boys Chukka and Dan aren't.
The Blair wing of the Labour Party is done. They're hated.
As for the maths. There are mathematic 'theories' on both sides, they are not the same as mathematical facts. I asked for maths.
Donny osmond wrote:
Exactly what it says. All these other attributes are great and desirable but don't mean anything if a politician isn't intelligent enough to know how to use them. Perfect example: allowing his words at the publication of a report into antisemitism to be construed as antisemitic. He had the decency and courage to stand up for his beliefs, but is too dumb to be able to do that and construct a sentence that couldn't be misconstrued. My problem with Corbyn isn't his beliefs, a lot of which I probably share, its that he's too thick +/or self-centered to be able to inspire anyone to go along with him.
Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk
I could understand your point, but that example is bollox. Find me a clearer way to say the same thing. The problem was the transcript, which made it sound wrong. Accident or sabotage?
Well, if he was intelligent enough to be a leader then he would've changed the transcript...?
But Ok, you want another example, witness his bullshit attempt to support an EU remain campaign that he clearly disagreed with.
Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk
The irony of zionists accusing people of racism seems to have escaped you Donny.
As for the maths. There are mathematic 'theories' on both sides, they are not the same as mathematical facts. I asked for maths.
Sent off the application for full membership, seems a waste of £25 even before Jeremy is likely to win, but there isn't much else to be done. I'm hoping if Jeremy does win this ballot another challenge is announced with a more serious alternative putting their name forward.
Digby wrote:Sent off the application for full membership, seems a waste of £25 even before Jeremy is likely to win, but there isn't much else to be done. I'm hoping if Jeremy does win this ballot another challenge is announced with a more serious alternative putting their name forward.
Id be amazed if there were. I think this leadership election is a one time deal. Lose and the rebels will either need to play very nicely or move along the green benches.
Digby wrote:Sent off the application for full membership, seems a waste of £25 even before Jeremy is likely to win, but there isn't much else to be done. I'm hoping if Jeremy does win this ballot another challenge is announced with a more serious alternative putting their name forward.
Id be amazed if there were. I think this leadership election is a one time deal. Lose and the rebels will either need to play very nicely or move along the green benches.
It's reached an absurd point, and if they're not going to strike out on their own then they may as well launch a new challenge as soon as an unsuccessful one is over. And I'd certainly expect another challenge if Corbyn takes about 55% of the vote or lower absent of £3 voters, and that might perhaps come from a serious candidate
Digby wrote:Sent off the application for full membership, seems a waste of £25 even before Jeremy is likely to win, but there isn't much else to be done. I'm hoping if Jeremy does win this ballot another challenge is announced with a more serious alternative putting their name forward.
Id be amazed if there were. I think this leadership election is a one time deal. Lose and the rebels will either need to play very nicely or move along the green benches.
It's reached an absurd point, and if they're not going to strike out on their own then they may as well launch a new challenge as soon as an unsuccessful one is over. And I'd certainly expect another challenge if Corbyn takes about 55% of the vote or lower absent of £3 voters, and that might perhaps come from a serious candidate
Maybe, although the longer this goes on for the more absurd the rebels become. If the party membership does vote to maintain Corbyn, then risking another election is likely to annoy supporters as much as tempt them to their side.
To the wider electorate, this will look like Labour pissing about whilst there are more important things to deal with.
Given what is at stake, I would have thought that a serious candidate would have put themselves forward by now. With the vote of no confidence, a stalking horse candidate is a bit pointless.
Forgive me for not reading it, does it compare his treatment with that of other politicians from other parties or is it solely about him?
Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk
It was so much easier to blame Them. It was bleakly depressing to think They were Us. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.
