Being the second least worst isn't a particularly solid argument. I'd argue Iceland is doing rather well for it's self these days. Few other European economies have their banking sector based in a quasi semi-independent enclave. Which has it's own taxpayer funded lobbyist embedded directly into parliament. There is however far less pressure on people to own property in Europe. It's entirely normal and acceptable to rent. Winning fair and square and winning according to the rules are not the same thing. The rules are biased towards the incumbent party and established parties. This makes it nearly impossible for new players to enter the game. There is also evidence postal ballot sampling was once again taking place and is in fact common. http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2015/05/0...-to-casa-brand-driven-by-postal-ballot-panic/ If the parties are using illegal practices to inform their campaign. How can that be fair? That's not winning fair and square. Labour lost because they had the wrong leader. Pure and simple. Nobody amongst the voting public ever really considered Ed Milliband as the next Prime Minister. He could have fought the election perfectly. And he would still have failed. He tried to connect with voters by talking to them in "special adviser speak". It was never going to work. And there was the small fact he and Balls didn't get along. Which echoes the Blair and Brown era. Greece. Heralded as the poster child for how bad socialism is. When in fact it was capitalism that destroyed their economy and continues to hold them down. The bailout money the Greeks have had has primarily been spent on bailing out their banks. The Greeks should follow the Icelandic example. Exit the Eurozone and even the EU. Jail their corrupt bankers. Forgive domestic debts. Bail out the people. The small businesses. Of course the IMF will do everything it can to stop that. A repeat of the Icelandic example would be very bad. Countries like Spain, Portugal, Italy and Ireland. would want to follow. The austerity con would be laid bare for all to see. Why would we need to rebuild the whole system? Which isn't a bad idea since the way it runs at the moment global crashes are inevitable. But simple steps like actually punishing bankers to destroy economies would be a nice first step. In a recent case a judge here in the UK decided some bankers, found guilty of fraud, had suffered enough as they were "embarrassed". Bless the poor wee souls. http://www.scriptonitedaily.com/201...-walk-free-judge-says-theyve-suffered-enough/ Why does our politics have to be left of right? Left of centre, right of centre, far right, far left. The tribalism is part of the problem. It's entirely possible to do things differently. Norway for example has a fairly conservative government. People like the idea of privately owned homes and businesses. They even mix public and private healthcare. And yet they don't seem to have to put up with the idealogical extremism we have here. Why? What are they doing differently? We shouldn't be taking lessons from the left or right. We should be taking lessons from countries that are not currently imploding.
That's not what most people in the Western world mean when they speak of "capitalism". What you're describing is more properly called "cronyism", "crony capitalism", or "crapitalism". You make a really great point about what American libertarians call the "false left/right paradigm". It seems to be the norm throughout the Anglosphere. :bang: I can't speak for Britain or Europe, but US politics is like this because the monied interests rigged the system many decades ago so it's nearly impossible for 3rd parties or independents to get onto ballots or into debates. The last time a 3rd party member-Ross Perot of the Reform Party-was allowed into a POTUS debate, he made fools of the Dem and GOP candidates at the time. (as an aside, people in the GOP liked to mock him and call him mad-but he turned out to be right about most everything)
I don't have the link handy right now. But the IMF has admitted it was wrong about the effects austerity would have on Greece and it's economy.
If that's the case. What should Americans be doing? Money and politics will always mix. Like or not business is a part of our society. We can't escape that. And our politicians are supposed to represent all of society. What we need to escape are business practices driven purely by the profit motive. I think it should be pretty clear now that when profit and market dominance are all that matters. Things go very badly wrong.
Finding solutions for problems locally. Certainly at least trying to understand and apply praxaeology. Yup, it's an inherently corrupt "business". Yes, this is the wishful thinking that leads to the Big Lie fed to us from grade school. Politicians don't represent all of any society. At best they represent the handful of people who voted for them. To the rest of society, they're just bullies in suits. Not sure what this means. Are you saying that people should be altruistic without thinking about their business? That certainly sounds noble, but it's not a sustainable model. The most successful businesses long term tend to give back to communities in the form of tithing, volunteer work, etc. Partly because there comes a point where you're financially comfortable and don't have to stress about paying the bills and eating. That's how things like Ronald McDonald's charities and a zillion others start. Pretty rare is the wealthy businessman (assuming one who got wealthy through honest means) who doesn't give charitably, in my experience. Even robber-barrons of olde like Rockefeller did this.
So...They're doing their jobs? I don't have any problem complaining about corruption or elitism or whatever but that specific quote is an odd one. That is basically the definition of representative democracy.
Not if you believe their jobs are as you described it prior. On paper, representatives are supposed to represent everyone in their district. In practice, they only represent themselves and maybe a handful of others (cronies, donors, etc). At state and national offices in particular, there are lots of corporate sponsors who want a return on their campaign investment. Being politicians, the pols do this-normally at the expense of everyone else. Detroit automakers and the too-big-to-fail corporate banksters didn't get bailouts for being such nice guys.
That's not what you said though. Them dealing with corporate backers and stuff is fair game to criticise as its quite a bad practice. Necessary maybe, but still not something positive. As far as representing voters...Yes they're supposed to represent their constituencies. But in reality they're going to back their voters. In the sense that they will act according to whatever their plans are and those plans are what, in theory, they got voted in on. And since votes are done by who got the most votes you're presumably supporting the largest number of people in your area that you can allowing for the fact you can't please everyone.
Ireland claims to have the strongest growing economy in Europe. http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/s...aint-saved-us-from-a-greek-scenario-1.2272846
This guy might beg to differ with you: "I had dropped more or less by chance into the only community of any size in Western Europe where political consciousness and disbelief in capitalism were more normal than their opposites." -- "Many of the normal motives of civilized life-snobbishness, money-grubbing, fear of the boss, etc.-had simply ceased to exist. The ordinary class-division of society had disappeared to an extent that is almost unthinkable in the money-tainted air of England; there was no one there except the peasants and ourselves, and no one owned anyone else as his master." -- "One had breathed the air of equality. I am well aware that it is now the fashion to deny that Socialism has anything to do with equality. In every country in the world a huge tribe of party-hacks and sleek little professors are busy 'proving' that Socialism means no more than a planned state-capitalism with the grab-motive left intact. But fortunately there also exists a vision of Socialism quite different from this." George Orwell -- Homage to Catalonia Orwell was there. He saw it. A grass-roots, populist socialism in Spain organized by peasants, anarcho-syndicalist trade unionist and members of the UGT among others.
Not necessarily. There are different types of growth. The sort that occurs through peaceful interaction, production, and trade among market actors, central bank "stimulus"(artificial liquidity injection as advocated by Keyes, et. al.), and State injections of liquidity (by welfare to welfare recipients and/or big business, or warfare spending-blowing stuff up, killing people, and injecting money artificially through the various "stuff" required for war: weapons, food, soldiery, etc). All artificial growth is destined to fail in the long term. (Bastiat's "Broken Window" illustrates the warfare/welfare and "public works" sort of socialism well) That's why corporate cronies and other leeches vie with each other to get money from the State and/or the central bank first. They get to use that capital however they want and let everyone eat the losses long term.
Not really. There are certain strains of "capitalists"-usually self-proclaimed "conservatives"-who think that all growth is "good" growth. That's wrong (depending on your worldview). From the laissez-faire capitalist perspective, artificial-especially State or central bank sponsored-growth is bad.
It's always a strange boast that, if you go from 0 to 5, or 60 to 64, the country on 5 is the strongest growining. but given capitalism only works via growth, and our resources are not infinate, it cant last in its present form.
Whilst this is not incorrect i.e. merit is stated here; you still have to ask, a) what if anything is going to replace Capitalism? b) what form would this new 'system' take? c) what path and steps would we take to effect these changes? - Capitalism is extremely entrenched - removal would not be simple d) what would be the consequences of these changes? i.e. a lot of vested interest would be destroyed e) how could we mitigate these consequences? Until these questions and others are answered, I see zero/little prospect for inclusive and equitable change that is meaningful, significant and effective. A lot of hot air is spouted by politicians and those on the sidelines. If you wish to deal with Capitalism, as is; then the realities of Stock Markets and Government Bonds in our interconnected debt traded world, are best not ignored, rather to be profoundly understood by as many people as possible.
Where is "Capitalism" entrenched? The American economy hasn't been capitalist (except in the Marxian sense-a "mixed" or cronyist sort of capitalism) in well over a century.
