The Political Thread

[Beaky Smoochies]

If we'd voted No it could not legally have applied to Ireland because it requires a change in the constitution. The treaty will put austerity rules into Irish law both binding and permanent. Europe will have final say on how we spend our budgets- mostly paying the debt of European banks.

Welcome to the joys of losing your sovereign independence after gaining it back, Joe dude...

Krugman's identification of the push for austerity owing more to ideology than a commitment to reducing the UK's deficit rings true. Osbourne's rhetoric doesn't obscure the long standing desire of those in his party (and many in the last Labour government) to subject every aspect of ordinary peoples' lives to the vagaries of the free market.

And the problem with that is...?  The notion of social justice is all well and admirable (and as Christians, we have a duty to help those less fortunate), but you have to get the money from somewhere, and Krugman is just a boilerplate demagogue who - like the entire Democratic party - don't want ANY cuts to welfare entitlements, I think Lady Thatcher said it best; "the problem with socialism is sooner or later you run out of everyone else's money", I say let the free market decide, it worked well so far... and for those who say "what about the credit crunch?", that wasn't free-market capitalism, THAT was crony capitalism borne out of attempted social engineering by the Democrats (see the 'Community Reinvestment Act')...

[Beaky Smoochies]

I say let the free market decide, it worked well so far...

I feel the need to clarify the above statement, because I know I'm going to get blowback on it from some (genuinely well-meaning) forum posters here, so here goes;

By "free market" in regards to social justice, I mean having those who are of a sufficient income band out of receiving any welfare entitlements or healthcare (means-tested in other words) in order to alleviate the considerable burden on those public resources so they are there for those who really need those services, with those more affluent citizens able to put their contributions for such matters in tax-free savings accounts for matters relating to healthcare and social security for their family.

There, hope that clarified things a bit...

[The Prodigal]

If we'd voted No it could not legally have applied to Ireland because it requires a change in the constitution. The treaty will put austerity rules into Irish law both binding and permanent. Europe will have final say on how we spend our budgets- mostly paying the debt of European banks.

Welcome to the joys of losing your sovereign independence after gaining it back, Joe dude...

Krugman's identification of the push for austerity owing more to ideology than a commitment to reducing the UK's deficit rings true. Osbourne's rhetoric doesn't obscure the long standing desire of those in his party (and many in the last Labour government) to subject every aspect of ordinary peoples' lives to the vagaries of the free market.

And the problem with that is...?  The notion of social justice is all well and admirable (and as Christians, we have a duty to help those less fortunate), but you have to get the money from somewhere, and Krugman is just a boilerplate demagogue who - like the entire Democratic party - don't want ANY cuts to welfare entitlements, I think Lady Thatcher said it best; "the problem with socialism is sooner or later you run out of everyone else's money", I say let the free market decide, it worked well so far... and for those who say "what about the credit crunch?", that wasn't free-market capitalism, THAT was crony capitalism borne out of attempted social engineering by the Democrats (see the 'Community Reinvestment Act')...

Beaky No offence but when you describe one of the world's most respected and authoritative economists as a boiler plate demagogue (and then go on to extoll the virtues of Margaret Thatcher) then I am afraid I find myself wondering where you are coming from.

[The Prodigal]

Beaky you refer to crony capitalism and juxtaposition it witha seemingly more pure and laudable version of it. What are the distinguishing features of each and how would you prevent the emergence of the crony version?

Don't mean to sound antagonistic Beaky. It's a good debate and thanks for some good saturday morning exchange.

[Frank]

I say let the free market decide, it worked well so far... and for those who say "what about the credit crunch?", that wasn't free-market capitalism, THAT was crony capitalism borne out of attempted social engineering by the Democrats (see the 'Community Reinvestment Act')...

Beaky; can you point to a single example where the operations of the free market have been allowed unlimited free play? Haven't the sterling efforts of industrialists and financiers always (in your view) been frustrated by some damned state intervention? Doesn't that make your your argument effectively unfalsifiable?

You're comparing your Platonic ideal of capitalism with the messy reality of how the financial and corporate sectors, monetary policy, and international trade have actually been demonstrated to interact in the real world we all have to co-exist in.

I'd second The Prodigal's encomium regarding your courage, your strength and your indefatiguability in continually contributing to debates where you know you're going to take considerable flack. As I said before, the purpose of exposing yourself to views different to your own is to force you to rethink and reformulate what can sometimes be lazily entrenched positions. Cheers for keeping us all on our toes, Beaky.

[The Prodigal]

I say let the free market decide, it worked well so far... and for those who say "what about the credit crunch?", that wasn't free-market capitalism, THAT was crony capitalism borne out of attempted social engineering by the Democrats (see the 'Community Reinvestment Act')...

Beaky; can you point to a single example where the operations of the free market have been allowed unlimited free play? Haven't the sterling efforts of industrialists and financiers always (in your view) been frustrated by some damned state intervention? Doesn't that make your your argument effectively unfalsifiable?

You're comparing your Platonic ideal of capitalism with the messy reality of how the financial and corporate sectors, monetary policy, and international trade have actually been demonstrated to interact in the real world we all have to co-exist in.

I'd second The Prodigal's encomium regarding your courage, your strength and your indefatiguability in continually contributing to debates where you know you're going to take considerable flack. As I said before, the purpose of exposing yourself to views different to your own is to force you to rethink and reformulate what can sometimes be lazily entrenched positions. Cheers for keeping us all on our toes, Beaky.

Great post.

[JOE SOAP]

If we'd voted No it could not legally have applied to Ireland because it requires a change in the constitution. The treaty will put austerity rules into Irish law both binding and permanent. Europe will have final say on how we spend our budgets- mostly paying the debt of European banks.

Welcome to the joys of losing your sovereign independence after gaining it back, Joe dude...

It matters little, the Euro's finished.

[JOE SOAP]

I feel the need to clarify the above statement, because I know I'm going to get blowback on it from some (genuinely well-meaning) forum posters here, so here goes;

By "free market" in regards to social justice, I mean having those who are of a sufficient income band out of receiving any welfare entitlements or healthcare (means-tested in other words) in order to alleviate the considerable burden on those public resources so they are there for those who really need those services, with those more affluent citizens able to put their contributions for such matters in tax-free savings accounts for matters relating to healthcare and social security for their family.

There, hope that clarified things a bit...

Then that's not a real 'free market'. That's still socialism. This says to me that you don't have much confidence in a true free-market: a market without state intervention.

[johnnystress]

A lot of talk about losing our sovereign independence because of the yes vote

But didn't Biffo hand over the keys a while back?

[JOE SOAP]

Yep, we lost it years ago.

[Frank]

If we'd voted No it could not legally have applied to Ireland because it requires a change in the constitution. The treaty will put austerity rules into Irish law both binding and permanent. Europe will have final say on how we spend our budgets- mostly paying the debt of European banks.

It's not a cynical political manoeuvre, it's part of our constitution that any amendment made to it must be ratified by the people. The other countries don't have that right.

A vote where the choice is between a shite sandwich and a shite club sandwich still seems to make a mockery of the principle of a referendum. The promise of referenda on specific issues always seems to be born out of politicians' instinct to cover their arses, rather than a desire to let the people have their say, and ensuring every Mary and Patrick has their hands dipped in the blood doesn't make the decision to yield sovereignty to Frankfurt a democratic one.

States either operate as direct democracies, where we all have to take a deep breath and educate ourselves on important issues before voting on everything- and accept responsibility when we (collectively) fuck up; or everyone (including the political class) agrees that, in our current Western model of representative democracy, we in the third estate subcontract responsibility for taking all the tough decisions on our behalf to the people we elect every four or five years.

Constitutionally mandating the populace to vote on a pact that will (ultimately) be enacted regardless of their decision produces the same degree of democratic deficit as politicians letting the operations of free market economics and the interests of industry and finance decide the future development of national infrastructure projects and public services.   

[JOE SOAP]

Constitutionally mandating the populace to vote on a pact that will (ultimately) be enacted regardless of their decision produces the same degree of democratic deficit as politicians letting the operations of free market economics and the interests of industry and finance decide the future development of national infrastructure projects and public services.

Constitutionally it couldn't be written in and enacted if voted down.

[Beaky Smoochies]

Alrighty, just let me put my flak jacket on first, now then, here goes (deep intake of breath)...

I think the Dredd trailer will be in July sometime bec- oh wait, wrong subject, woops, let me try that again (ahem) -

Firstly, regarding Krugman, you claim he's "one of the world's most respected and authoritative economists", by whose standard?  If you mean the liberal media, go figure, if you mean the London School of Economics crowd (an institution founded by Fabian Socialists with the expressed intent of replacing capitalism with socialism), then go figure, every economic strategy supported and advocated by the likes of Krugman and co (large-scale spending, more spending to overcome economic retraction, etc) have been unmitigated failures, yet the the British/Irish/American media at large still have him on, despite his atrocious track record on matters of economic and fiscal prudence... why don't they have someone who is GENUINELY an "authoritative" expert on such matters, someone like Thomas Sowell, but as he's an African-American conservative, he's tantamount to a child molester in the eyes of the 'lamestream' media...

As far as my standards for both crony and free-market capitalism, the former is when government effectively hot-wires the system by picking winners and losers by handing out contracts, subsidies, and general all-round goodies to their donors and benefactors, instead of the latter option which is letting the market forces of genuine supply-and-demand determine what works and is most effective, free of outright and direct political influence, a bit crude and rough outlines there, but just to get my point across...

Lady Thatcher certainly made mistakes in her administration (the Anglo-Irish Agreement easily the worst one), but her economic record stands by itself, what was Britain's economic health like in 1979 and what was it in 1990 when she stepped aside (after being knifed in the back by her cabinet, the b**tards!), and, lastly (no cheering in the aisles there), do I feel government has long held back industrialists and financiers with "damned state intervention", the answer is no, you need SOME amount of regulation to prevent exploitation and/or fraud, a good example being Canada, who were spared the worst of the credit crunch as they had strict banking regulations on the buying and selling of junk bonds and reckless mortgage-backed securities, so that proved to be a good thing, certainly for them.

Phew, I think that clears that up, I'm knackered now, please be gentle with the responses guys, I bleed easily ...

[The Prodigal]

Alrighty, just let me put my flak jacket on first, now then, here goes (deep intake of breath)...

I think the Dredd trailer will be in July sometime bec- oh wait, wrong subject, woops, let me try that again (ahem) -

Firstly, regarding Krugman, you claim he's "one of the world's most respected and authoritative economists", by whose standard?  If you mean the liberal media, go figure, if you mean the London School of Economics crowd (an institution founded by Fabian Socialists with the expressed intent of replacing capitalism with socialism), then go figure, every economic strategy supported and advocated by the likes of Krugman and co (large-scale spending, more spending to overcome economic retraction, etc) have been unmitigated failures, yet the the British/Irish/American media at large still have him on, despite his atrocious track record on matters of economic and fiscal prudence... why don't they have someone who is GENUINELY an "authoritative" expert on such matters, someone like Thomas Sowell, but as he's an African-American conservative, he's tantamount to a child molester in the eyes of the 'lamestream' media...

As far as my standards for both crony and free-market capitalism, the former is when government effectively hot-wires the system by picking winners and losers by handing out contracts, subsidies, and general all-round goodies to their donors and benefactors, instead of the latter option which is letting the market forces of genuine supply-and-demand determine what works and is most effective, free of outright and direct political influence, a bit crude and rough outlines there, but just to get my point across...

Lady Thatcher certainly made mistakes in her administration (the Anglo-Irish Agreement easily the worst one), but her economic record stands by itself, what was Britain's economic health like in 1979 and what was it in 1990 when she stepped aside (after being knifed in the back by her cabinet, the b**tards!), and, lastly (no cheering in the aisles there), do I feel government has long held back industrialists and financiers with "damned state intervention", the answer is no, you need SOME amount of regulation to prevent exploitation and/or fraud, a good example being Canada, who were spared the worst of the credit crunch as they had strict banking regulations on the buying and selling of junk bonds and reckless mortgage-backed securities, so that proved to be a good thing, certainly for them.

Phew, I think that clears that up, I'm knackered now, please be gentle with the responses guys, I bleed easily ...

First paragraph of something as accessible as wiki ought to refute your labelling of Krugamn as only a "boiler-plate demagogue" Beaky

Paul Robin Krugman ( /ˈkruːɡmən/;[6] born February 28, 1953) is an American economist, Professor of Economics and International Affairs at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University, Centenary Professor at the London School of Economics, and an op-ed columnist for The New York Times.[7][8] In 2008, Krugman won the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences (informally the Nobel Prize in Economics) for his contributions to New Trade Theory and New Economic Geography. According to the Nobel Prize Committee, the prize was given for Krugman's work explaining the patterns of international trade and the geographic concentration of wealth, by examining the impact of economies of scale and of consumer preferences for diverse goods and services.[9]

Krugman is known in academia for his work on international economics (including trade theory, economic geography, and international finance),[10][11] liquidity traps and currency crises. He is the 17th most widely cited economist in the world today[12] and is ranked among the most influential academic thinkers in the US.[13]

As of 2008, Krugman has written 20 books and has published over 200 scholarly articles in professional journals and edited volumes.[14] He has also written more than 750 columns on economic and political issues for The New York Times.

He sounds like a right idiot tbf.

Beaky I endorse the regulation you speak of-but is that compromising the libetarianism that you seem to champion elsewhere? You cite Canada but hasn't the likes of Sarah Palin and her right wing fellow tea party travellers labelled Canada as a socialist country.

Oh and good morning mate. I hope all is well and thanks for the debate. Its most enjoyable!

[Frank]

Lady Thatcher certainly made mistakes in her administration ... but her economic record stands by itself, what was Britain's economic health like in 1979 and what was it in 1990 when she stepped aside(?)

Black Wednesday? Thatcher exited the stage just in time for her successor to take the rap for the policies they'd both implemented, just like Blair two decades later, and the Thatcher/Lawson hailing of their economic miracle was as patently ridiculous as Brown's claim to have ended the Boom and Bust economic cycle. It's widely accepted that Thatcher's disastrous decision to enter the ERM was a last, desperate move to stave off the consequences of endemic inflation, caused by the previous decade of low taxes/low public spending.

do I feel government has long held back industrialists and financiers with "damned state intervention", the answer is no, you need SOME amount of regulation to prevent exploitation and/or fraud, a good example being Canada, who were spared the worst of the credit crunch as they had strict banking regulations on the buying and selling of junk bonds and reckless mortgage-backed securities, so that proved to be a good thing, certainly for them.

I agree that that countries like Canada and Germany serve as excellent models of how to proceed in the long term- but neither has responded to the present worldwide financial crisis by making sudden, drastic cuts to public spending. There are no do-overs or quick take-backs in strategic economic policy, so Krugman's argument- that drastically changing course causes more lasting problems than the pressing exigencies it appears to address- has some bearing on the question of how to prevent our current stagnation turning into an irreversible decline.