Stop voting for fucking Tories

[C T]

The OED Definition of Capitalism is "An economic system in which the factors of production are privately owned and individual owners of capital are free to make use of it as they see fit; in particular, for their own profit."

It's in the very nature of the system to maximise profit for the owners of businesses. Advancement in wages and working conditions have been fought tooth and nail for a long time and not once have they been given up willingly by business owners or their representatives in parliament - this is an extreme example but it was argued that abolishing slavery in the UK would be economic folly and as such a very large compensation scheme was worked out, but it was worked out for the slave owners, not for the slaves.

The UK has only very recently paid off the loans they took out to finance the compensation schemes.

In this pooling of wealth we're talking of a desire to aquire, and the issue there is that's not unique to capitalism, that's something of a norm. If anything capitalism would stand more opposed because it's about profit, and you get more profit by reinvesting money not by allowing a tiny% to further their greed. In this this there's a distinction between those few who control the strings in the now and what profit means for them in the now Vs profit within the system.

And actually you may raise concerns about wages needing to be dragged ahead kicking and screaming, but (a) nothing else has come close to matching the achievements of capitalism and (b) where it's not happening that's capitalism distorted by greed, which is to say irrational rather than rational capitalistic endeavours as 'capitalism' would have it. Capitalism is too very much rooted in the idea of free labour

It's not perfect, I'm far from a free market type myself, but the complaints about capitalism tend to be complaints about things being palmed off onto or conflated in error onto capitalism in error. Whether in practice one could ever actually get to a state of capitalism I doubt, because so many actors in the agency would not act rationally, and for any number of reasons, it's probably about as attainable as socialism in practice.

In my OP on this I put the emphasis on neoliberalism, ie 'market-oriented reform policies such as "eliminating price controls, deregulating capital markets, lowering trade barriers" and reducing, especially through privatisation and austerity, state influence in the economy.'

This ideology led to the repeal of Glass-Steagall and a world-wide economic crash, it was the driver for taking the UK out of the EU, it led to an increase in UK debt as a percentage of GDP since 2010 whilst hugely cutting services at the point of delivery - that money went somewhere.
Neoliberalism is the ideological rump on which Tufton Street and Liz Truss/Kwartang stood, which had disastrous consequences, even the markets wouldn't tolerate them.

A mixed economy in which the private and public sector mutually support each other is the healthy option, but it's not one that capitalists particularly want, except when it comes to public subsidy for risk and privatisation of profit.

In fairness I'm not so sure that the markets spewed at Truss' ideology (although it is pretty spew worthy).

It was worse than that really. Truss was so obsessed with her legacy, and only having a small amount of time to leave her mark on history that she rushed through her crazy ideas with no thought. Left a massive hole in the books and I always thought that is what spooked the markets.

Utter neglect and completely ego driven. Should carry some sort of prison sentence.

[Hal Jordan]

I'm pretty sure no one gets punched into a coma in Klein's books.

I remember watching Rollerball as an 11 year old, we fast forwarded the "boring bits" and just watched the matches.

[C69]

I'm reading Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein at the moment, it's illuminating to learn about Milton Friedman* and the Chicago School of absolutist free-marketerism.

The version of capitalism we have at the moment certainly seems like one that's running to that credo and is slowly but surely kicking 'impediments' like regulations and rights out of its way in the pursuit of 'pure' capitalism. It's acolytes would certainly reject any idea that the version they're aiming for is polluted by greed.


* He comes across as a frankly evil and immoral man.

It's interesting to read bout Friedman, Pinochet and the Chicago Boys.
The man was indeed an immoral piece of shit in later life he reflected upon the Chile experience and was slightly apologetic about the human cost of his enacted theories

[inactionman]

In this pooling of wealth we're talking of a desire to aquire, and the issue there is that's not unique to capitalism, that's something of a norm. If anything capitalism would stand more opposed because it's about profit, and you get more profit by reinvesting money not by allowing a tiny% to further their greed. In this this there's a distinction between those few who control the strings in the now and what profit means for them in the now Vs profit within the system.

And actually you may raise concerns about wages needing to be dragged ahead kicking and screaming, but (a) nothing else has come close to matching the achievements of capitalism and (b) where it's not happening that's capitalism distorted by greed, which is to say irrational rather than rational capitalistic endeavours as 'capitalism' would have it. Capitalism is too very much rooted in the idea of free labour

It's not perfect, I'm far from a free market type myself, but the complaints about capitalism tend to be complaints about things being palmed off onto or conflated in error onto capitalism in error. Whether in practice one could ever actually get to a state of capitalism I doubt, because so many actors in the agency would not act rationally, and for any number of reasons, it's probably about as attainable as socialism in practice.

In my OP on this I put the emphasis on neoliberalism, ie 'market-oriented reform policies such as "eliminating price controls, deregulating capital markets, lowering trade barriers" and reducing, especially through privatisation and austerity, state influence in the economy.'

This ideology led to the repeal of Glass-Steagall and a world-wide economic crash, it was the driver for taking the UK out of the EU, it led to an increase in UK debt as a percentage of GDP since 2010 whilst hugely cutting services at the point of delivery - that money went somewhere.
Neoliberalism is the ideological rump on which Tufton Street and Liz Truss/Kwartang stood, which had disastrous consequences, even the markets wouldn't tolerate them.

A mixed economy in which the private and public sector mutually support each other is the healthy option, but it's not one that capitalists particularly want, except when it comes to public subsidy for risk and privatisation of profit.

In fairness I'm not so sure that the markets spewed at Truss' ideology (although it is pretty spew worthy).

It was worse than that really. Truss was so obsessed with her legacy, and only having a small amount of time to leave her mark on history that she rushed through her crazy ideas with no thought. Left a massive hole in the books and I always thought that is what spooked the markets.

Utter neglect and completely ego driven. Should carry some sort of prison sentence.

They did some dastardliness and weasel wordiness to avoid the scrutiny of the office of budget responsibility, and so they really don't have a leg to stand on - they deliberately short-circuited safeguards. It's such wanton reckless irresponsibility that they should be in prison.

[inactionman]

I'm pretty sure no one gets punched into a coma in Klein's books.

I remember watching Rollerball as an 11 year old, we fast forwarded the "boring bits" and just watched the matches.

It's not exactly a masterpiece but it's a lot more thoughtful than I remembered.

The matches are hilarious - James Caan dropkicking someone on rollerskates.

[Tichtheid]

This is very tangentially related to the current discussion and is more of an aside, but please bear with me.

I watched the original James Caan Rollerball last night, which is one of a set of 70s flicks that amazon seem to have dug out of the archives.

I hadn't realised that its central theme is about the ceding of power to corporations, the control these corporations exert on people and everyday society, and the way lives and liberty are secondary to the success of the corporation. Interesting that it was made in 1975 - it's an old and ongoing concern.

I feel a bit of a dumbarse, I'm watching rollerball and socks is reading Naomi Klein.

Funnily enough the 70s is where Klein suggests Friedman and his followers first started to get their hooks into policy makers and start the process of eroding the supposed market interference of the New Deal.

Also, you're fine. In addition to Klein I'm also going back through the Hellboy comics. We can all be high and low brow.

Agree on the high and low brow - it's all good.


Regarding your first point, there is an interesting conversation between Jon Stewart and Ian Hislop on YouTube, at one point Stewart talks about the action taken by the conservatives after Nixon was found out, they set up structures in academia, in think tanks and in the media to drive their own narrative, a guy called Roger Ailes who had worked with Reagan and Bush Snr eventually became CEO of Fox News

The part should come up on a time stamp here

[weegie01]

From the Bank of England

On 28 August 1833 Parliament passed legislation that abolished slavery within the British Empire, emancipating more than 800,000 enslaved Africans. As part of the compromise that helped to secure abolition, the British government agreed a generous compensation package of £20 million to slave-owners for the loss of their ‘property’. The Bank of England administered the payment of slavery compensation on behalf of the British government. Using records held in the Bank’s Archive, a data set of 13,500 unique transactions has been produced which details the collection of £3.4 million of compensation awarded in the form of government stock (3.5% Reduced Annuities). We shed new light on the compensation process by deploying this data set to analyse who actually held the Reduced Annuities in the books of the Bank of England, and for how long the stock was kept. While slave-owners were the main beneficiaries of the compensation process, our analysis shows that there were also other groups who gained through their roles as intermediaries. These agents sought to profit from the business opportunity presented by the moment of compensation in the mid-1830s by facilitating the collection of compensation awards on behalf of slave-owners and charging commission fees for their services. The results show that just 10 individual account names had over 8,000 transactions totalling £2.2 million. The largest agents were partners in London banks and merchant firms that had pre-existing commercial ties to the colonies that received compensation in Reduced Annuities (Cape of Good Hope, Mauritius, and the Virgin Islands). Our analysis also shows that this stock was quickly sold, meaning that compensation awards made in Reduced Annuities were converted into cash. By 1844, almost none of the £3.4 million in compensation was still held as Reduced Annuities by those to whom it had been awarded, or by those who had collected it. All of this provides further evidence for the strong links between financial institutions in the City of London, the capital generated through the transatlantic slavery economy, and the compensation process during the 1830s.

https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/working ... on-1835-43

I haven't read thought he links on that page yet.

How-so-ever, surely the point here is the forced sale of goods and chattel, in this case human beings, and the owners of such being compensated - this as a demonstration of the power of property owners.

The bonds were tradeable assets which the above suggest were sold on immediately. The point I was making is that the Govt did not disburse the funds at that point in time, but only paid the face value of the bonds in the 1950s, by which time their purchasing power, and real cost to the Govt, was dramatically lower.

I am not sure what your point about the power of property owners is. Respect for the laws of property is fundamental to the effective functioning of an economy. We may not like the fact that people legally owned slaves, but in legal terms depriving people of their slaves without compensation would be no different from depriving them of any other legally acquired asset without compensation.

[dpedin]

In this pooling of wealth we're talking of a desire to aquire, and the issue there is that's not unique to capitalism, that's something of a norm. If anything capitalism would stand more opposed because it's about profit, and you get more profit by reinvesting money not by allowing a tiny% to further their greed. In this this there's a distinction between those few who control the strings in the now and what profit means for them in the now Vs profit within the system.

And actually you may raise concerns about wages needing to be dragged ahead kicking and screaming, but (a) nothing else has come close to matching the achievements of capitalism and (b) where it's not happening that's capitalism distorted by greed, which is to say irrational rather than rational capitalistic endeavours as 'capitalism' would have it. Capitalism is too very much rooted in the idea of free labour

It's not perfect, I'm far from a free market type myself, but the complaints about capitalism tend to be complaints about things being palmed off onto or conflated in error onto capitalism in error. Whether in practice one could ever actually get to a state of capitalism I doubt, because so many actors in the agency would not act rationally, and for any number of reasons, it's probably about as attainable as socialism in practice.

In my OP on this I put the emphasis on neoliberalism, ie 'market-oriented reform policies such as "eliminating price controls, deregulating capital markets, lowering trade barriers" and reducing, especially through privatisation and austerity, state influence in the economy.'

This ideology led to the repeal of Glass-Steagall and a world-wide economic crash, it was the driver for taking the UK out of the EU, it led to an increase in UK debt as a percentage of GDP since 2010 whilst hugely cutting services at the point of delivery - that money went somewhere.
Neoliberalism is the ideological rump on which Tufton Street and Liz Truss/Kwartang stood, which had disastrous consequences, even the markets wouldn't tolerate them.

A mixed economy in which the private and public sector mutually support each other is the healthy option, but it's not one that capitalists particularly want, except when it comes to public subsidy for risk and privatisation of profit.

In fairness I'm not so sure that the markets spewed at Truss' ideology (although it is pretty spew worthy).

It was worse than that really. Truss was so obsessed with her legacy, and only having a small amount of time to leave her mark on history that she rushed through her crazy ideas with no thought. Left a massive hole in the books and I always thought that is what spooked the markets.

Utter neglect and completely ego driven. Should carry some sort of prison sentence.

In any 'normal' country it is the existence of the checks and balances - laws, rules, regulations, norms, etc - that enable it to exist. Once these begin to get eroded then we see the extreme left or right wings begin to take over and ultimately begin their own road to destruction. It might not happen overnight but eventually right and left wing extremes are unsustainable and begin to fall apart or else modify to move back into a more mixed economy model. We can see the kick back against the neoliberal policies of the Tories in the UK and the resistance against the super profits being made by oil and gas, power, water, banks, companies etc and the corresponding deterioration in quality of services. Not being able to get a dental or GP appointment, waiting for routine operation, shit in rivers and beaches, water supply running dry, power bills through the roof, going cold during winter, no access to a bank branch, unaffordable housing, etc is what pisses folk off. It will be this that brings them down and no amount of culture war issues ie small boats, war on woke, lefty lawyers, etc will save them.

It is interesting to watch Biden try and bring capitalism back into check - the attack on Pharma by introducing price controls to stop price gouging over most commonly used drugs and medical care in general. The resistance is significant but it is recognition that capitalism got out of control and began to kill people by pricing them out of drugs and healthcare. The moves against Purdue and the Sackler family who literally killed thousands of people by pushing harmful Oxycontin pain killers and creating an army of middle class junkies is perhaps the best example of where capitalism will stop at nothing in order to maximise profits. Biden is also pushing controls over price gouging with food and petrol and getting rid of all the hidden junk fees. The Republicans, funded by big industry, will stop at nothing to prevent the push back by the state against big industry.

[inactionman]

From the Bank of England

On 28 August 1833 Parliament passed legislation that abolished slavery within the British Empire, emancipating more than 800,000 enslaved Africans. As part of the compromise that helped to secure abolition, the British government agreed a generous compensation package of £20 million to slave-owners for the loss of their ‘property’. The Bank of England administered the payment of slavery compensation on behalf of the British government. Using records held in the Bank’s Archive, a data set of 13,500 unique transactions has been produced which details the collection of £3.4 million of compensation awarded in the form of government stock (3.5% Reduced Annuities). We shed new light on the compensation process by deploying this data set to analyse who actually held the Reduced Annuities in the books of the Bank of England, and for how long the stock was kept. While slave-owners were the main beneficiaries of the compensation process, our analysis shows that there were also other groups who gained through their roles as intermediaries. These agents sought to profit from the business opportunity presented by the moment of compensation in the mid-1830s by facilitating the collection of compensation awards on behalf of slave-owners and charging commission fees for their services. The results show that just 10 individual account names had over 8,000 transactions totalling £2.2 million. The largest agents were partners in London banks and merchant firms that had pre-existing commercial ties to the colonies that received compensation in Reduced Annuities (Cape of Good Hope, Mauritius, and the Virgin Islands). Our analysis also shows that this stock was quickly sold, meaning that compensation awards made in Reduced Annuities were converted into cash. By 1844, almost none of the £3.4 million in compensation was still held as Reduced Annuities by those to whom it had been awarded, or by those who had collected it. All of this provides further evidence for the strong links between financial institutions in the City of London, the capital generated through the transatlantic slavery economy, and the compensation process during the 1830s.

https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/working ... on-1835-43

I haven't read thought he links on that page yet.

How-so-ever, surely the point here is the forced sale of goods and chattel, in this case human beings, and the owners of such being compensated - this as a demonstration of the power of property owners.

The bonds were tradeable assets which the above suggest were sold on immediately. The point I was making is that the Govt did not disburse the funds at that point in time, but only paid the face value of the bonds in the 1950s, by which time their purchasing power, and real cost to the Govt, was dramatically lower.

I am not sure what your point about the power of property owners is. Respect for the laws of property is fundamental to the effective functioning of an economy. We may not like the fact that people legally owned slaves, but in legal terms depriving people of their slaves without compensation would be no different from depriving them of any other legally acquired asset without compensation.

The bolded bit gave me pause; is that always true?

If we make a certain new drug illegal, for example, do we recompense anyone in possession of the drug who presumably lawfully acquired it before the prohibition? On the other hand, I seem to recall there was a compensation scheme for gunowners after Dunblane.

I always assumed that the compensation paid to slave owners was more about making the legislation palatable to slaveowners - who were most likely the key voters (noting it included MPs) and influencers in the early 1800s - than for any reason of propriety. More a tactical necessity. I stress that's my assumption.

[sockwithaticket]

This is very tangentially related to the current discussion and is more of an aside, but please bear with me.

I watched the original James Caan Rollerball last night, which is one of a set of 70s flicks that amazon seem to have dug out of the archives.

I hadn't realised that its central theme is about the ceding of power to corporations, the control these corporations exert on people and everyday society, and the way lives and liberty are secondary to the success of the corporation. Interesting that it was made in 1975 - it's an old and ongoing concern.

I feel a bit of a dumbarse, I'm watching rollerball and socks is reading Naomi Klein.

Funnily enough the 70s is where Klein suggests Friedman and his followers first started to get their hooks into policy makers and start the process of eroding the supposed market interference of the New Deal.

Also, you're fine. In addition to Klein I'm also going back through the Hellboy comics. We can all be high and low brow.

Agree on the high and low brow - it's all good.


Regarding your first point, there is an interesting conversation between Jon Stewart and Ian Hislop on YouTube, at one point Stewart talks about the action taken by the conservatives after Nixon was found out, they set up structures in academia, in think tanks and in the media to drive their own narrative, a guy called Roger Ailes who had worked with Reagan and Bush Snr eventually became CEO of Fox News

The part should come up on a time stamp here

I've watched that interview before, illuminating and scary. It's useful to have guys like this outside of the system trying to hold feet to the fire, but they're really the sort of characters who you'd like to see in positions of power trying to implement beneficial policy rather than those who do exist inside politics doing the bidding lobbyists.

[Line6 HXFX]

I'm reading Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein at the moment, it's illuminating to learn about Milton Friedman* and the Chicago School of absolutist free-marketerism.

The version of capitalism we have at the moment certainly seems like one that's running to that credo and is slowly but surely kicking 'impediments' like regulations and rights out of its way in the pursuit of 'pure' capitalism. It's acolytes would certainly reject any idea that the version they're aiming for is polluted by greed.


* He comes across as a frankly evil and immoral man.

When he died, he was completely ashamed of his ideas and the abject pain and misery they caused, and wanted the world to remember the work he did for the scouts of America, instead of his lifelong career and economic ideas.
Says it all really..
The shitty, cunty tory politicians who adopted his ideas and inflicted all that monatarist misery on the otherhand, demand to be deified and worshipped.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

The resistance is significant but it is recognition that capitalism got out of control and began to kill people by pricing them out of drugs and healthcare.

See again I think that's about greed, not capitalism. Capitalism would given much greater consideration to the effective/rational deployment of free labour in the market economy than the providers of private health coverage. So if you were to ask Capitalism it would be for much more action on preventative measures, and much better and cheaper access earlier in disease then expensive and more limited emergency driven treatments. Not because Capitalism is for the good, only because it's a more efficient way to generate profits in the round

So it's not about capitalism getting out of control, or at least we should be understanding it is, and perhaps can only ever be an irrational capitalistic structure, and thus it'd be insane not to want strong regulations

[weegie01]

The bolded bit gave me pause; is that always true?

If we make a certain new drug illegal, for example, do we recompense anyone in possession of the drug who presumably lawfully acquired it before the prohibition? On the other hand, I seem to recall there was a compensation scheme for gunowners after Dunblane.

I always assumed that the compensation paid to slave owners was more about making the legislation palatable to slaveowners - who were most likely the key voters (noting it included MPs) and influencers in the early 1800s - than for any reason of propriety. More a tactical necessity. I stress that's my assumption.

Pretty much. There will always be exceptions. For example a certain herbicide I used was made illegal. I could not buy any more, and had to use my existing stocks before a certain date or bin it. There are circumstances in which the state can deprive an individual of property (proceeds of crime, emergency legislation in case of war etc), but as a general rule the state cannot deprive an individual of legally acquired assets without paying just compensation.

There is no doubt there was expediency in the slavery compensation. Without the compensation slavery would almost certainly be made illegal eventually, but it would take much longer as turkeys were being asked to vote for Christmas.

[Tichtheid]

Respect for the laws of property is fundamental to the effective functioning of an economy. We may not like the fact that people legally owned slaves, but in legal terms depriving people of their slaves without compensation would be no different from depriving them of any other legally acquired asset without compensation.

I wince when I see views like that, not only for the normalising of slavery, it ignores the fact that for centuries the constituent parts of the UK have seen laws passed that took away common lands and put them in the hands of landlords, the Inclosure Acts and Scotland's Clearances were legal, aye, but people who were hunting for their own food became poachers and thieves, just because of these laws. In the case of the Clearances it was the biggest betrayal of the way of life imaginable to those who were forcibly removed from their homes.

I'm being necessarily brief here, this is a huge topic.

[weegie01]

Respect for the laws of property is fundamental to the effective functioning of an economy. We may not like the fact that people legally owned slaves, but in legal terms depriving people of their slaves without compensation would be no different from depriving them of any other legally acquired asset without compensation.

I wince when I see views like that, not only for the normalising of slavery, it ignores the fact that for centuries the constituent parts of the UK have seen laws passed that took away common lands and put them in the hands of landlords, the Inclosure Acts and Scotland's Clearances were legal, aye, but people who were hunting for their own food became poachers and thieves, just because of these laws. In the case of the Clearances it was the biggest betrayal of the way of life imaginable to those who were forcibly removed from their homes.

I'm being necessarily brief here, this is a huge topic.

The point is that slavery was normal. Slavery was normal for as far back as human history goes, and existed in every continent. It is only to modern eyes that we look on slavery as an abnormal and aberrant state.

I am not defending slavery, but it and the events surrounding its demise has to be looked at through a lens of the times, not a modern one. Included in that is that, in previous times, there were many other systems under which people lived that were miserable in many ways, and in which rights were tenuous, so slavery was not the extreme outlier we see it as today. As conditions and rights in other systems improved, slavery became more and more of an outlier until the point was reached that the weight of opinion moved against it.

[Tichtheid]

Respect for the laws of property is fundamental to the effective functioning of an economy. We may not like the fact that people legally owned slaves, but in legal terms depriving people of their slaves without compensation would be no different from depriving them of any other legally acquired asset without compensation.

I wince when I see views like that, not only for the normalising of slavery, it ignores the fact that for centuries the constituent parts of the UK have seen laws passed that took away common lands and put them in the hands of landlords, the Inclosure Acts and Scotland's Clearances were legal, aye, but people who were hunting for their own food became poachers and thieves, just because of these laws. In the case of the Clearances it was the biggest betrayal of the way of life imaginable to those who were forcibly removed from their homes.

I'm being necessarily brief here, this is a huge topic.

The point is that slavery was normal. Slavery was normal for as far back as human history goes, and existed in every continent. It is only to modern eyes that we look on slavery as an abnormal and aberrant state.

I am not defending slavery, but it and the events surrounding its demise has to be looked at through a lens of the times, not a modern one. Included in that is that, in previous times, there were many other systems under which people lived that were miserable in many ways, and in which rights were tenuous, so slavery was not the extreme outlier we see it as today. As conditions and rights in other systems improved, slavery became more and more of an outlier until the point was reached that the weight of opinion moved against it.

I'm watching the ABs game so I'll be quick, but I think you'll find the weight of opinion of the slaves were somewhat different to the views you reference

[Rhubarb & Custard]

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/bo ... 11348.html

You would wonder if Boris is a Russian sleeper trying to bring down English institutions one by one. The honours system was already on life support but utterly laughable now

I've never heard Boris was a Russian sleeper, Carrie sure, but not Boris

[tabascoboy]

We live in a Murdochracy now?

The Daily Telegraph says Rishi Sunak drafted a resignation statement when he was fined last year for breaching lockdown rules - but was talked out of quitting as chancellor. The paper is serialising a book by its political editor Ben Riley-Smith. In it, he says executives at Rupert Murdoch's NewsCorp were instrumental in convincing Mr Sunak to stay on. The paper promises the book will "unpack how Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak's relationship deteriorated to the point of destruction". A spokeswoman for News UK declined to comment.

[Biffer]

Respect for the laws of property is fundamental to the effective functioning of an economy. We may not like the fact that people legally owned slaves, but in legal terms depriving people of their slaves without compensation would be no different from depriving them of any other legally acquired asset without compensation.

I wince when I see views like that, not only for the normalising of slavery, it ignores the fact that for centuries the constituent parts of the UK have seen laws passed that took away common lands and put them in the hands of landlords, the Inclosure Acts and Scotland's Clearances were legal, aye, but people who were hunting for their own food became poachers and thieves, just because of these laws. In the case of the Clearances it was the biggest betrayal of the way of life imaginable to those who were forcibly removed from their homes.

I'm being necessarily brief here, this is a huge topic.

The point is that slavery was normal. Slavery was normal for as far back as human history goes, and existed in every continent. It is only to modern eyes that we look on slavery as an abnormal and aberrant state.

I am not defending slavery, but it and the events surrounding its demise has to be looked at through a lens of the times, not a modern one. Included in that is that, in previous times, there were many other systems under which people lived that were miserable in many ways, and in which rights were tenuous, so slavery was not the extreme outlier we see it as today. As conditions and rights in other systems improved, slavery became more and more of an outlier until the point was reached that the weight of opinion moved against it.

Common ownership of, or access to, land was normal. But that change was treated entirely differently. Why do you think that was?

[weegie01]

I'm watching the ABs game so I'll be quick, but I think you'll find the weight of opinion of the slaves were somewhat different to the views you reference.

No one in history has been happy about being at the bottom of the pile in whatever societal structure they are in. That does not mean society as a whole did not accept that the structure was normal, valid or whatever term you want to use. The British chose to abolish slavery, at considerable cost to themselves, when societal attitudes had developed to a point where the exploitation of others in general was no longer as acceptable as it had once been. That rendered slavery, as one of the most extreme forms of exploitation, unacceptable to society as a whole.

[weegie01]

Common ownership of, or access to, land was normal. But that change was treated entirely differently. Why do you think that was?

Because it was entirely different. One deprived individuals of legally acquired, identifiable assets. The other, to make a sweeping genralisation, allocated assets that did not have a legally identified owner to owners.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/bo ... 11348.html

You would wonder if Boris is a Russian sleeper trying to bring down English institutions one by one. The honours system was already on life support but utterly laughable now

I've never heard Boris was a Russian sleeper, Carrie sure, but not Boris

Tbf he is quite a base man. I think it's clear from that article that my initial suspicions that he was riding her are probably right. The father thing always seemed bollox. Occam's razor applies

She does look similar to Boris, and in this either way he's slept with someone he frankly should't have

[dpedin]

The resistance is significant but it is recognition that capitalism got out of control and began to kill people by pricing them out of drugs and healthcare.

See again I think that's about greed, not capitalism. Capitalism would given much greater consideration to the effective/rational deployment of free labour in the market economy than the providers of private health coverage. So if you were to ask Capitalism it would be for much more action on preventative measures, and much better and cheaper access earlier in disease then expensive and more limited emergency driven treatments. Not because Capitalism is for the good, only because it's a more efficient way to generate profits in the round

So it's not about capitalism getting out of control, or at least we should be understanding it is, and perhaps can only ever be an irrational capitalistic structure, and thus it'd be insane not to want strong regulations

Theoretically I can see your argument from a purely rational and economic sense but, in the real world the pursuit of profit by individuals and big companies, capitalism and greed become intertwined and one and the same thing. Maximising profits and accumulating wealth becomes an all powerful 'drug' and is used as a rational, albeit flawed, to overcome any and all moral barriers. The Sackler family via their Purdue company pushing Oxycontin is a classic example of this. Turn a blind eye, blame the management process or claim the reality was kept from them. Even when caught and found guilty they managed to salt away $11b of dollars from their company before dissolving Purdue and leaving $6b to cover the cost of all the damage and 1,000s of deaths they caused. This is the true face of capitalism.

It has always been thus - the US car industry was notorious in the post war period for placing profit ahead of safety of the drivers and passengers - read Nader or the case of the Ford Pinto and the exploding fuel tanks and the cost benefit analysis produced by Ford.

When Gov becomes an extension of big businesses then those who suffer are the wider population and in particular the poor, the weak, the infirm, those on the margin and just the plain unlucky. Their pursuit of profit drives them to pressure Gov to minimise or get rid of protections such as regulations, the law, etc. Reducing red tape and EU interference was one of the drivers of Brexit and we now see what that means - shit in rivers and on beaches, higher power costs, weaker regulation on use of chemicals and pesticides, etc. Oh and bigger profits for big companies.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

The resistance is significant but it is recognition that capitalism got out of control and began to kill people by pricing them out of drugs and healthcare.

See again I think that's about greed, not capitalism. Capitalism would given much greater consideration to the effective/rational deployment of free labour in the market economy than the providers of private health coverage. So if you were to ask Capitalism it would be for much more action on preventative measures, and much better and cheaper access earlier in disease then expensive and more limited emergency driven treatments. Not because Capitalism is for the good, only because it's a more efficient way to generate profits in the round

So it's not about capitalism getting out of control, or at least we should be understanding it is, and perhaps can only ever be an irrational capitalistic structure, and thus it'd be insane not to want strong regulations

Theoretically I can see your argument from a purely rational and economic sense but, in the real world the pursuit of profit by individuals and big companies, capitalism and greed become intertwined and one and the same thing. Maximising profits and accumulating wealth becomes an all powerful 'drug' and is used as a rational, albeit flawed, to overcome any and all moral barriers. The Sackler family via their Purdue company pushing Oxycontin is a classic example of this. Turn a blind eye, blame the management process or claim the reality was kept from them. Even when caught and found guilty they managed to salt away $11b of dollars from their company before dissolving Purdue and leaving $6b to cover the cost of all the damage and 1,000s of deaths they caused. This is the true face of capitalism.

It has always been thus - the US car industry was notorious in the post war period for placing profit ahead of safety of the drivers and passengers - read Nader or the case of the Ford Pinto and the exploding fuel tanks and the cost benefit analysis produced by Ford.

When Gov becomes an extension of big businesses then those who suffer are the wider population and in particular the poor, the weak, the infirm, those on the margin and just the plain unlucky. Their pursuit of profit drives them to pressure Gov to minimise or get rid of protections such as regulations, the law, etc. Reducing red tape and EU interference was one of the drivers of Brexit and we now see what that means - shit in rivers and on beaches, higher power costs, weaker regulation on use of chemicals and pesticides, etc. Oh and bigger profits for big companies.

It's not really the pursuit of profit, it's the pursuit of profit by some people in entitled positions that actually limits profit across society. And that's not quite the same thing, and there's little point blaming capitalism for it, because that complaint is rather missing the point.

Capitalism is the the rational pursuit of profit, once it's distorted (as in practice it must surely be) it's often the distorting factors not capitalism that should be the target.

All of which I say with the belief capitalism can never work because you need everyone to behave with integrity and for everyone to be a rational actor. And I'm not sold anyway that pursuit of profit is the best idea given much more modern thinking on consumption and sustainability.

And I'm also wondering why I'm so strongly recalling a well know essay on the protestant ethic in all this, seemingly some have take the wrong meaning from die protestantische ethik

[Tichtheid]

I'm watching the ABs game so I'll be quick, but I think you'll find the weight of opinion of the slaves were somewhat different to the views you reference.

No one in history has been happy about being at the bottom of the pile in whatever societal structure they are in. That does not mean society as a whole did not accept that the structure was normal, valid or whatever term you want to use. The British chose to abolish slavery, at considerable cost to themselves, when societal attitudes had developed to a point where the exploitation of others in general was no longer as acceptable as it had once been. That rendered slavery, as one of the most extreme forms of exploitation, unacceptable to society as a whole.

I guess of all possible responses to the ending of slavery, moral relativism was the one I expected least.

I mentioned those events purely to show that the capitalist profit motive supersedes all other considerations and to emphasise that it only gives up some of that profit to inconvenient practices such as a living wage and the right to work in a safe environment when it is restrained and challenged, it never cedes ground of its own volition.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

I'm watching the ABs game so I'll be quick, but I think you'll find the weight of opinion of the slaves were somewhat different to the views you reference.

No one in history has been happy about being at the bottom of the pile in whatever societal structure they are in. That does not mean society as a whole did not accept that the structure was normal, valid or whatever term you want to use. The British chose to abolish slavery, at considerable cost to themselves, when societal attitudes had developed to a point where the exploitation of others in general was no longer as acceptable as it had once been. That rendered slavery, as one of the most extreme forms of exploitation, unacceptable to society as a whole.

I guess of all possible responses to the ending of slavery, moral relativism was the one I expected least.

I mentioned those events purely to show that the capitalist profit motive supersedes all other considerations and to emphasise that it only gives up some of that profit to inconvenient practices such as a living wage and the right to work in a safe environment when it is restrained and challenged, it never cedes ground of its own volition.

See that's drivel. Capitalism has proved very much in favour of free labour (labour being free to move that is not unpaid), it being useful to determine rational profits. Your objection to those pulling the levers abjuring practices such as living wages and safe environments isn't an objection to capitalism, at least (and I keep coming back to this point) not rational capitalism.

By all means object to the irrationality and cite the need for regulation, but direct the ire where it belongs

[Tichtheid]

No one in history has been happy about being at the bottom of the pile in whatever societal structure they are in. That does not mean society as a whole did not accept that the structure was normal, valid or whatever term you want to use. The British chose to abolish slavery, at considerable cost to themselves, when societal attitudes had developed to a point where the exploitation of others in general was no longer as acceptable as it had once been. That rendered slavery, as one of the most extreme forms of exploitation, unacceptable to society as a whole.

I guess of all possible responses to the ending of slavery, moral relativism was the one I expected least.

I mentioned those events purely to show that the capitalist profit motive supersedes all other considerations and to emphasise that it only gives up some of that profit to inconvenient practices such as a living wage and the right to work in a safe environment when it is restrained and challenged, it never cedes ground of its own volition.

See that's drivel. Capitalism has proved very much in favour of free labour (labour being free to move that is not unpaid), it being useful to determine rational profits. Your objection to those pulling the levers abjuring practices such as living wages and safe environments isn't an objection to capitalism, at least (and I keep coming back to this point) not rational capitalism.

By all means object to the irrationality and cite the need for regulation, but direct the ire where it belongs

Okay then, if it’s drivel I assume you’ll be able to provide a long list of improvements throughout history in wages, terms of employment, sick pay, holiday, allowance, health and safety, relative security of employment etc that were offered by employers without being asked for.

Presumably trade unions were formed as friendship groups if they had no other reason to exist.

[weegie01]

I guess of all possible responses to the ending of slavery, moral relativism was the one I expected least.

Why do you think slavery became unacceptable after thousands of years of practice? Did society just wake up one morning and decide it had changed its mind, or did other things change, in the context of which previously acceptable practices no longer were? At around the same time child labour was being banned in the UK, health and safety in factories started being enforced, the HSE was founded etc. Broadly speaking, UK attitudes to all forms of exploitation were changing and the UK started taking a more enlightened view of exploitation and individual rights. I don't see what is controversial about saying that attitudes to slavery was part of that, and that is a context relevant to the abolition of slavery.

[petej]

I guess of all possible responses to the ending of slavery, moral relativism was the one I expected least.

I mentioned those events purely to show that the capitalist profit motive supersedes all other considerations and to emphasise that it only gives up some of that profit to inconvenient practices such as a living wage and the right to work in a safe environment when it is restrained and challenged, it never cedes ground of its own volition.

See that's drivel. Capitalism has proved very much in favour of free labour (labour being free to move that is not unpaid), it being useful to determine rational profits. Your objection to those pulling the levers abjuring practices such as living wages and safe environments isn't an objection to capitalism, at least (and I keep coming back to this point) not rational capitalism.

By all means object to the irrationality and cite the need for regulation, but direct the ire where it belongs

Okay then, if it’s drivel I assume you’ll be able to provide a long list of improvements throughout history in wages, terms of employment, sick pay, holiday, allowance, health and safety, relative security of employment etc that were offered by employers without being asked for.

Presumably trade unions were formed as friendship groups if they had no other reason to exist.

Not like we don't have our free labour in our economy. I wonder what the value is of all those grandparents looking after their grandchildren while both parents work.

[inactionman]

I guess of all possible responses to the ending of slavery, moral relativism was the one I expected least.

I mentioned those events purely to show that the capitalist profit motive supersedes all other considerations and to emphasise that it only gives up some of that profit to inconvenient practices such as a living wage and the right to work in a safe environment when it is restrained and challenged, it never cedes ground of its own volition.

See that's drivel. Capitalism has proved very much in favour of free labour (labour being free to move that is not unpaid), it being useful to determine rational profits. Your objection to those pulling the levers abjuring practices such as living wages and safe environments isn't an objection to capitalism, at least (and I keep coming back to this point) not rational capitalism.

By all means object to the irrationality and cite the need for regulation, but direct the ire where it belongs

Okay then, if it’s drivel I assume you’ll be able to provide a long list of improvements throughout history in wages, terms of employment, sick pay, holiday, allowance, health and safety, relative security of employment etc that were offered by employers without being asked for.

Presumably trade unions were formed as friendship groups if they had no other reason to exist.

The only significant examples I can think of are the Quakers and those of a similar ilk, but the ethical behaviours were drawn from a theology and belief.

New Lanark is an interesting day out. The museum don't really go into the owners' motivations - its more about the experiences of the people who worked there. However, I'm always left with a feeling Robert Owen invested in facilities for workers with half an eye on ensuring a fit, healthy, stable and ultimately reliable workforce for the mills.

[lemonhead]

Never thought I'd see the day but better late than forever.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ncompetent

[C69]

Never thought I'd see the day but better late than forever.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ncompetent

Refreshingly honest

[lemonhead]

In other (old) news, Labour and Libdems splitting 50% of the vote to allow Dorries' successor to carry on the good work.

Tactics

[Rhubarb & Custard]

I guess of all possible responses to the ending of slavery, moral relativism was the one I expected least.

I mentioned those events purely to show that the capitalist profit motive supersedes all other considerations and to emphasise that it only gives up some of that profit to inconvenient practices such as a living wage and the right to work in a safe environment when it is restrained and challenged, it never cedes ground of its own volition.

See that's drivel. Capitalism has proved very much in favour of free labour (labour being free to move that is not unpaid), it being useful to determine rational profits. Your objection to those pulling the levers abjuring practices such as living wages and safe environments isn't an objection to capitalism, at least (and I keep coming back to this point) not rational capitalism.

By all means object to the irrationality and cite the need for regulation, but direct the ire where it belongs

Okay then, if it’s drivel I assume you’ll be able to provide a long list of improvements throughout history in wages, terms of employment, sick pay, holiday, allowance, health and safety, relative security of employment etc that were offered by employers without being asked for.

Presumably trade unions were formed as friendship groups if they had no other reason to exist.

Lobbying can run alongside. And I'm not suggesting all in the economy is rosy, nor it should simply be left to capitalism. Merely, being able to price cost of labour from a free pool of labour is a boon to capitalism not a burden. Capitalism simply isn't going to object to higher rates of productivity, such as one might find in a happier workforce. And this should be self-evident because one simply cannot point to a system that makes more for more than in what we consider the more capitalistic nations, particularly of the Occidental variety (as a tribute to lectures on protestant ethic)

And I'm all up for taking a swipe at capitalism on the grounds that profit should't be the end all. I'm just also of the view that irrational actions being attributed to capitalism rather muddies the waters, and allows that which should more clearly be the target to escape what should be greater focus. One does need regulation because actors aren't all rational, one does need to understand not all markets are free and open, say for instance power companies in the UK, and even what passes for free often needs actions to break up corporate interests because of restrictive practices monopolies being one such obvious target, in say telecoms, social media, banking...

[dpedin]

See that's drivel. Capitalism has proved very much in favour of free labour (labour being free to move that is not unpaid), it being useful to determine rational profits. Your objection to those pulling the levers abjuring practices such as living wages and safe environments isn't an objection to capitalism, at least (and I keep coming back to this point) not rational capitalism.

By all means object to the irrationality and cite the need for regulation, but direct the ire where it belongs

Okay then, if it’s drivel I assume you’ll be able to provide a long list of improvements throughout history in wages, terms of employment, sick pay, holiday, allowance, health and safety, relative security of employment etc that were offered by employers without being asked for.

Presumably trade unions were formed as friendship groups if they had no other reason to exist.

Lobbying can run alongside. And I'm not suggesting all in the economy is rosy, nor it should simply be left to capitalism. Merely, being able to price cost of labour from a free pool of labour is a boon to capitalism not a burden. Capitalism simply isn't going to object to higher rates of productivity, such as one might find in a happier workforce. And this should be self-evident because one simply cannot point to a system that makes more for more than in what we consider the more capitalistic nations, particularly of the Occidental variety (as a tribute to lectures on protestant ethic)

And I'm all up for taking a swipe at capitalism on the grounds that profit should't be the end all. I'm just also of the view that irrational actions being attributed to capitalism rather muddies the waters, and allows that which should more clearly be the target to escape what should be greater focus. One does need regulation because actors aren't all rational, one does need to understand not all markets are free and open, say for instance power companies in the UK, and even what passes for free often needs actions to break up corporate interests because of restrictive practices monopolies being one such obvious target, in say telecoms, social media, banking...

Rationally then, if there is an unlimited supply of labour, as the slave trade was at the time, then the capitalists did a quick cost benefit analysis and decided that keeping them in shitty living conditions and working them till they died and then sending another boat to load up with more was cheaper than looking after them and even paying them as free people. The Aussie twat who triggered this debate was essentially saying the same thing - keep unemployment higher so we can lower wages and treat employees as shit and lower benefits in order to maintain higher profits and return on capital. Simple supply and demand in order to control prices. Ditto US car companies deciding it was cheaper to fight claims in court for people who died or were maimed in cars with serious safety defects than it was to recall or redesign models that meant they cost more. Capitalism unbridled is a disaster for societies and it isn't just one or two irrational actors, they are just the stupid ones who say this out loud! It is ingrained into most major large corporations where the pursuit of profit, bonuses, share price, etc leads sensible people to do the most stupid and heinous things and disregard the impact on wider society.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

Okay then, if it’s drivel I assume you’ll be able to provide a long list of improvements throughout history in wages, terms of employment, sick pay, holiday, allowance, health and safety, relative security of employment etc that were offered by employers without being asked for.

Presumably trade unions were formed as friendship groups if they had no other reason to exist.

Lobbying can run alongside. And I'm not suggesting all in the economy is rosy, nor it should simply be left to capitalism. Merely, being able to price cost of labour from a free pool of labour is a boon to capitalism not a burden. Capitalism simply isn't going to object to higher rates of productivity, such as one might find in a happier workforce. And this should be self-evident because one simply cannot point to a system that makes more for more than in what we consider the more capitalistic nations, particularly of the Occidental variety (as a tribute to lectures on protestant ethic)

And I'm all up for taking a swipe at capitalism on the grounds that profit should't be the end all. I'm just also of the view that irrational actions being attributed to capitalism rather muddies the waters, and allows that which should more clearly be the target to escape what should be greater focus. One does need regulation because actors aren't all rational, one does need to understand not all markets are free and open, say for instance power companies in the UK, and even what passes for free often needs actions to break up corporate interests because of restrictive practices monopolies being one such obvious target, in say telecoms, social media, banking...

Rationally then, if there is an unlimited supply of labour, as the slave trade was at the time, then the capitalists did a quick cost benefit analysis and decided that keeping them in shitty living conditions and working them till they died and then sending another boat to load up with more was cheaper than looking after them and even paying them as free people. The Aussie twat who triggered this debate was essentially saying the same thing - keep unemployment higher so we can lower wages and treat employees as shit and lower benefits in order to maintain higher profits and return on capital. Simple supply and demand in order to control prices. Ditto US car companies deciding it was cheaper to fight claims in court for people who died or were maimed in cars with serious safety defects than it was to recall or redesign models that meant they cost more. Capitalism unbridled is a disaster for societies and it isn't just one or two irrational actors, they are just the stupid ones who say this out loud! It is ingrained into most major large corporations where the pursuit of profit, bonuses, share price, etc leads sensible people to do the most stupid and heinous things and disregard the impact on wider society.

Who do you think the capitalists were before capitalism as we came to recognise it in the Occident? Would you even consider it was a thing in terms of a system wide concept? Because whilst in every system always people pursue their own agenda to capture what resources they can it often didn't as such have profit at the heart of the planning in advance

Mostly these things were run out of the home. Whereas the capitalism as we know it built on the back of shifts in social thinking, technological developments, private businesses which is to say distinguishable from the home, and the notion of accounting for the cost of labour from a pool of free labour.

It's not like it was better pre capitalism with a system that derived profits based on some feudal model, perhaps even one that entailed slavery (allowing there is some difference between say slavery and serfdom)

And it's the disastrous capitalist system which has driven the changes that now see most of the people (in the Occident) be considered somewhere in the middles classes, clearly many would think there's both the room for and need for much more improvement again, but it'd be silly to overlook change has been delivered in spectacular style, and in a way that hasn't been bettered (not even close) by any other system

[fishfoodie]

Why amn’t I surprised that that intellectual black hole, Cleverly, suggesting the Entertainment industry needs to get its house in order, re sexual harassment/assault ?

Maybe he should have a look at the percentages there versus his own chosen profession before he starts throwing stones ? Fucking moron.

[Line6 HXFX]

I mean the boom of the eighties was basically brought about by the selling off of public services, and exploiting anomalies in the markets, that if you make lots of people redundant, the share price goes up quite a bit (as its called efficiency savings).

So human misery.

Growth during the 90s and 2000s was about the exploitation cheap foriegn labour, and the banks giving everyone who could suck in air loans, and the crazy stupid boom bust housing market.

All of these things we (and future generations ) pay for and will be paying massively for.

Now we have nothing to sell off, nobody wants a loan, cheap foriegn construction and agricultural workers are not bothering to show up, we only have our organs left to sell. The free market capitalist pyramid scheme has collapsed. Only people like Liz Truss believe in it.

Time for another world war.

History has shown the wealthy would much rather kill all the working classes, by setting them against each other... than admit defeat and give them socialist government (that threaten their wealth).

Your lives mean less than shit to these people.

Rory Stewart had to deny (he voluntarily brought this up out of the blue yesterday) that tories are not "all" genicidal maniacs, and that they don't actually sit around all day and plan how to kill poor people, when it seriously looks like (this being the net results of them in power) that's all they f'king do.

[dpedin]

Lobbying can run alongside. And I'm not suggesting all in the economy is rosy, nor it should simply be left to capitalism. Merely, being able to price cost of labour from a free pool of labour is a boon to capitalism not a burden. Capitalism simply isn't going to object to higher rates of productivity, such as one might find in a happier workforce. And this should be self-evident because one simply cannot point to a system that makes more for more than in what we consider the more capitalistic nations, particularly of the Occidental variety (as a tribute to lectures on protestant ethic)

And I'm all up for taking a swipe at capitalism on the grounds that profit should't be the end all. I'm just also of the view that irrational actions being attributed to capitalism rather muddies the waters, and allows that which should more clearly be the target to escape what should be greater focus. One does need regulation because actors aren't all rational, one does need to understand not all markets are free and open, say for instance power companies in the UK, and even what passes for free often needs actions to break up corporate interests because of restrictive practices monopolies being one such obvious target, in say telecoms, social media, banking...

Rationally then, if there is an unlimited supply of labour, as the slave trade was at the time, then the capitalists did a quick cost benefit analysis and decided that keeping them in shitty living conditions and working them till they died and then sending another boat to load up with more was cheaper than looking after them and even paying them as free people. The Aussie twat who triggered this debate was essentially saying the same thing - keep unemployment higher so we can lower wages and treat employees as shit and lower benefits in order to maintain higher profits and return on capital. Simple supply and demand in order to control prices. Ditto US car companies deciding it was cheaper to fight claims in court for people who died or were maimed in cars with serious safety defects than it was to recall or redesign models that meant they cost more. Capitalism unbridled is a disaster for societies and it isn't just one or two irrational actors, they are just the stupid ones who say this out loud! It is ingrained into most major large corporations where the pursuit of profit, bonuses, share price, etc leads sensible people to do the most stupid and heinous things and disregard the impact on wider society.

Who do you think the capitalists were before capitalism as we came to recognise it in the Occident? Would you even consider it was a thing in terms of a system wide concept? Because whilst in every system always people pursue their own agenda to capture what resources they can it often didn't as such have profit at the heart of the planning in advance

Mostly these things were run out of the home. Whereas the capitalism as we know it built on the back of shifts in social thinking, technological developments, private businesses which is to say distinguishable from the home, and the notion of accounting for the cost of labour from a pool of free labour.

It's not like it was better pre capitalism with a system that derived profits based on some feudal model, perhaps even one that entailed slavery (allowing there is some difference between say slavery and serfdom)

And it's the disastrous capitalist system which has driven the changes that now see most of the people (in the Occident) be considered somewhere in the middles classes, clearly many would think there's both the room for and need for much more improvement again, but it'd be silly to overlook change has been delivered in spectacular style, and in a way that hasn't been bettered (not even close) by any other system

I honestly dont know where to start with this!

[Rhubarb & Custard]

Rationally then, if there is an unlimited supply of labour, as the slave trade was at the time, then the capitalists did a quick cost benefit analysis and decided that keeping them in shitty living conditions and working them till they died and then sending another boat to load up with more was cheaper than looking after them and even paying them as free people. The Aussie twat who triggered this debate was essentially saying the same thing - keep unemployment higher so we can lower wages and treat employees as shit and lower benefits in order to maintain higher profits and return on capital. Simple supply and demand in order to control prices. Ditto US car companies deciding it was cheaper to fight claims in court for people who died or were maimed in cars with serious safety defects than it was to recall or redesign models that meant they cost more. Capitalism unbridled is a disaster for societies and it isn't just one or two irrational actors, they are just the stupid ones who say this out loud! It is ingrained into most major large corporations where the pursuit of profit, bonuses, share price, etc leads sensible people to do the most stupid and heinous things and disregard the impact on wider society.

Who do you think the capitalists were before capitalism as we came to recognise it in the Occident? Would you even consider it was a thing in terms of a system wide concept? Because whilst in every system always people pursue their own agenda to capture what resources they can it often didn't as such have profit at the heart of the planning in advance

Mostly these things were run out of the home. Whereas the capitalism as we know it built on the back of shifts in social thinking, technological developments, private businesses which is to say distinguishable from the home, and the notion of accounting for the cost of labour from a pool of free labour.

It's not like it was better pre capitalism with a system that derived profits based on some feudal model, perhaps even one that entailed slavery (allowing there is some difference between say slavery and serfdom)

And it's the disastrous capitalist system which has driven the changes that now see most of the people (in the Occident) be considered somewhere in the middles classes, clearly many would think there's both the room for and need for much more improvement again, but it'd be silly to overlook change has been delivered in spectacular style, and in a way that hasn't been bettered (not even close) by any other system

I honestly dont know where to start with this!

Some basic understanding of what capitalism is would help. Because too many of the complaints are related to greed in a system that leans towards some notion of capitalism and run contrary to what capitalism would want