Europe --- In or Out

[Rayvin 4964]

19 minutes ago, Renton said:

 

In your opinion, does Denmark work within a neoliberal framework?

 

Believe it or not, i know very little about Denmark's political situation.

 

If you're building towards a point here it might be quicker to just tell me what it is and I'll look into it and get back to you..?

[ewerk 26781]

Well their one of the happiest nations on earth, racist but happy.

[Alex 30757]

The Russians influenced the result but CT is right to say they’re not to blame. He’s just wrong on every other score. The blame for all of this lies solely with David Cameron for making a huge issue out something most people barely cared about, let alone understood. Anything else is the sort of revisionism leavers constantly indulge in to justify their nonsensical positions 

[ewerk 26781]

Plus his policy of austerity was pretty much what tipped the balance of the vote.

[Renton 18024]

13 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

Believe it or not, i know very little about Denmark's political situation.

 

If you're building towards a point here it might be quicker to just tell me what it is and I'll look into it and get back to you..?

 

I'm trying to say your stock answer that neoliberalism is to blame is too broad. Scandinavian countries are all in the EU and EEA, so I think by your definition are within the neoliberal framework. All are much happier places than the UK despite terrible weather. Clearly you can have high taxation and wealth redistribution within the current neoliberal framework if you have the political will. That is, a market based economy doesn't have to be bad per se. There's nothing in neoliberalism that says government can't directly intervene when there is market failure, for instance. This was the point about Blair's "third way". It worked to a large extent.

Edited July 5, 2018 by Renton

[Alex 30757]

18 minutes ago, ewerk said:

Plus his policy of austerity was pretty much what tipped the balance of the vote.

Oh, he played an absolute blinder alright 

[Rayvin 4964]

25 minutes ago, Renton said:

 

I'm trying to say your stock answer that neoliberalism is to blame is too broad. Scandinavian countries are all in the EU and EEA, so I think by your definition are within the neoliberal framework. All are much happier places than the UK despite terrible weather. Clearly you can have high taxation and wealth redistribution within the current neoliberal framework if you have the political will. That is, a market based economy doesn't have to be bad per se. There's nothing in neoliberalism that says government can't directly intervene when there is market failure, for instance. This was the point about Blair's "third way". It worked to a large extent.

 

 

My stock answer in this case was as much effort as I was prepared to put into a response to CT. I've gone over this in detail before but no one really remembers the gist of what anyone says in here so we end up repeating a lot of stuff.

 

As an initial thought in response to your point, I would say that up until the market collapse, I would have argued that Thatcherism (The form of Neoliberalism that took hold in the UK spanning the Blairite years) was a good thing for this country in many ways, and was certainly developed under Blair's Labour. However it is clear that there is a point at which it 'goes too far' in its drive to reduce all individual human beings to 'consumers' and to take all state owned assets into the hands of the private sector.

 

Here's an article on Denmark's "position" in terms of Neoliberalism compared to the US:

 

http://www.demos.org/blog/3/25/16/would-american-neoliberals-be-happy-denmark

 

The article concludes that Neoliberals from the US would struggle to be satisfied with the far more public sector oriented, socialist Danish economy. So we can conclude therefore that there is a 'scale' at work in this. 

 

I'm going to drop in this segment of Monbiot's piece on it, that I link to from time to time - this is how Neoliberals see the world - the Danish appear to be a long way further back on this scale than we are, probably at the point where we were under Blair, when everything looked good:

 

Attempts to limit competition are treated as inimical to liberty. Tax and regulation should be minimised, public services should be privatised. The organisation of labour and collective bargaining by trade unions are portrayed as market distortions that impede the formation of a natural hierarchy of winners and losers. Inequality is recast as virtuous: a reward for utility and a generator of wealth, which trickles down to enrich everyone. Efforts to create a more equal society are both counterproductive and morally corrosive. The market ensures that everyone gets what they deserve.

We internalise and reproduce its creeds. The rich persuade themselves that they acquired their wealth through merit, ignoring the advantages – such as education, inheritance and class – that may have helped to secure it. The poor begin to blame themselves for their failures, even when they can do little to change their circumstances.

Never mind structural unemployment: if you don’t have a job it’s because you are unenterprising. Never mind the impossible costs of housing: if your credit card is maxed out, you’re feckless and improvident. Never mind that your children no longer have a school playing field: if they get fat, it’s your fault. In a world governed by competition, those who fall behind become defined and self-defined as losers.

[ewerk 26781]

*Logs off*

[Renton 18024]

 

23 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

 

My stock answer in this case was as much effort as I was prepared to put into a response to CT. I've gone over this in detail before but no one really remembers the gist of what anyone says in here so we end up repeating a lot of stuff.

 

As an initial thought in response to your point, I would say that up until the market collapse, I would have argued that Thatcherism (The form of Neoliberalism that took hold in the UK spanning the Blairite years) was a good thing for this country in many ways, and was certainly developed under Blair's Labour. However it is clear that there is a point at which it 'goes too far' in its drive to reduce all individual human beings to 'consumers' and to take all state owned assets into the hands of the private sector.

 

Here's an article on Denmark's "position" in terms of Neoliberalism compared to the US:

 

http://www.demos.org/blog/3/25/16/would-american-neoliberals-be-happy-denmark

 

The article concludes that Neoliberals from the US would struggle to be satisfied with the far more public sector oriented, socialist Danish economy. So we can conclude therefore that there is a 'scale' at work in this. 

 

I'm going to drop in this segment of Monbiot's piece on it, that I link to from time to time - this is how Neoliberals see the world - the Danish appear to be a long way further back on this scale than we are, probably at the point where we were under Blair, when everything looked good:

 

Attempts to limit competition are treated as inimical to liberty. Tax and regulation should be minimised, public services should be privatised. The organisation of labour and collective bargaining by trade unions are portrayed as market distortions that impede the formation of a natural hierarchy of winners and losers. Inequality is recast as virtuous: a reward for utility and a generator of wealth, which trickles down to enrich everyone. Efforts to create a more equal society are both counterproductive and morally corrosive. The market ensures that everyone gets what they deserve.

We internalise and reproduce its creeds. The rich persuade themselves that they acquired their wealth through merit, ignoring the advantages – such as education, inheritance and class – that may have helped to secure it. The poor begin to blame themselves for their failures, even when they can do little to change their circumstances.

Never mind structural unemployment: if you don’t have a job it’s because you are unenterprising. Never mind the impossible costs of housing: if your credit card is maxed out, you’re feckless and improvident. Never mind that your children no longer have a school playing field: if they get fat, it’s your fault. In a world governed by competition, those who fall behind become defined and self-defined as losers.

 

Edit. Bollocks, lost my post. Summary, I agree, and CT doesn't deserve a one word response, he deserves a two word one. 

Edited July 5, 2018 by Renton

[Rayvin 4964]

1 hour ago, ewerk said:

*Logs off*

 

You know you love it

[ewerk 26781]

Owen Patterson still doesn't understand how a JIT system works.

 

[Christmas Tree 4003]

Theresa has it all covered.

[ewerk 26781]

We’ll see what Angela tells her.

[Christmas Tree 4003]

Angela won’t risk losing her herring supply.

[Renton 18024]

55 minutes ago, ewerk said:

Owen Patterson still doesn't understand how a JIT system works.

 

 

His ignorance is astounding. He doesn't even understand the basics ffs. This surely can now only support the soft Brexit narrative as the hard Brexiteers are repeatedly shown up as bone fide idiots. Not that the BBC will properly report it. 

[Renton 18024]

10 minutes ago, Christmas Tree said:

Angela won’t risk losing her herring supply.

It's May's minge that stinks of kippers. Allegedly. 

Edited July 5, 2018 by Renton

[Christmas Tree 4003]

1 hour ago, ewerk said:

Owen Patterson still doesn't understand how a JIT system works.

 

What in the PM’s plan stop JIT working?

[Renton 18024]

10 minutes ago, Christmas Tree said:

What in the PM’s plan stop JIT working?

Well, it would introduce huge bureaucratic costs to business where they don't exist now. And there will be inevitable friction even if we have full regulatory alignment (and therefore accept ECJ) because of other non tariff barriers such as rules of origin.

Read this: https://www.cer.eu/insights/brexit-and-rules-origin-why-free-trade-agreements-≠-free-trade

 

 

More importantly, her plan (not officially published yet anyway) is cherry picking yet again so won't get accepted by the EU. 

Edited July 5, 2018 by Renton

[ewerk 26781]

Did you actually listen to the audio?

[Christmas Tree 4003]

3 minutes ago, ewerk said:

Did you actually listen to the audio?

 

I did but you didn’t answer my question

[ewerk 26781]

I never mentioned anything about May's plan and JIT.

[Christmas Tree 4003]

6 minutes ago, ewerk said:

I never mentioned anything about May's plan and JIT.

 

But the guy you quoted says in the video he agrees with Mays plan from yesterday.  Why else are you mentioning jit.

[ewerk 26781]

I mentioned it because he's saying that Jaguar can source parts more cheaply outside of Europe so it will benefit them. JIT doesn't work particularly well if you're trying to import parts from China.

[Christmas Tree 4003]

3 minutes ago, ewerk said:

I mentioned it because he's saying that Jaguar can source parts more cheaply outside of Europe so it will benefit them. JIT doesn't work particularly well if you're trying to import parts from China.

 

Fair enough

[Renton 18024]

Just now, ewerk said:

I mentioned it because he's saying that Jaguar can source parts more cheaply outside of Europe so it will benefit them. JIT doesn't work particularly well if you're trying to import parts from China.

 

Not only that, but Jaguar is a prestige car so why would they want to source cheap foreign shite? 

Also, about 75% of JLR cars are exported to the EU.

And.... JLR cars won't count as British under rules of origin. That is a fatal problem. Patterson is a fucking idiot.