Young Master Smeet
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/basic-income-funded-by-capital-income-by-yanis-varoufakis-2016-10A small twist on the unviersal basic income idea:
Quote:So how should society be compensated? Taxation is the wrong answer. Corporations pay taxes in exchange for services the state provides them, not for capital injections that must yield dividends. There is thus a strong case that the commons have a right to a share of the capital stock, and associated dividends, reflecting society’s investment in corporations’ capital. And, because it is impossible to calculate the size of state and social capital crystalized in any firm, we can decide how much of its capital stock the public should own only by means of a political mechanism.A simple policy would be to enact legislation requiring that a percentage of capital stock (shares) from every initial public offering (IPO) be channeled into a Commons Capital Depository, with the associated dividends funding a universal basic dividend (UBD). This UBD should, and can be, entirely independent of welfare payments, unemployment insurance, and so forth, thus ameliorating the concern that it would replace the welfare state, which embodies the concept of reciprocity between waged workers and the unemployed.He ignores the Speenham land objection to UBI (that it subsidises low wages), but this suggestion is at least interesting from a reformist perspective, as it is deliverable. The obvious problem is, the first rightwing government that wants a bit of cash could sell those shares at the stroke of a pen.
jondwhite wrote:your IOU fag packet isn't limited supply though and doesn't have $1bn market cap. Not saying I agree with them but this would be their response.Well, it is, since ultimately it's linked to my phsyical cash reserves which I may be called upon to use to redeem my IOUs: my IOU only holds value so long as my credit is good.
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/oct/23/i-daniel-blake-ken-loach-review-mark-kermodeMark Kermode's review is worth reading, as are the video interviews at the bottom.
Saw it lasty night. It's good: pretty much the usual Loach/Lafferty fair: it's not full blown propagandist, but realist art, and subtley understated. Outside the cinema there were people holding a banner depicting the faces of those who have died as a result of the benefit crack down, I don't know if they have been there every night.The big question I have is: since when have Geordies qualified for human rights?
Obviously, it's not in the bag, but I did wonder how much bribery, fiddling and threats would be applied to get a change: as with many of these things, local politics probably played a part.
Quote:From paintings and food to illness and icebergs, science is happening everywhere. Rather than follow the path of a syllabus or textbook, Andrew Morris takes examples from the science we see every day and uses them as entry points to explain a number of fundamental scientific concepts – from understanding colour to the nature of hormones – in ways that anyone can grasp. While each chapter offers a separate story, they are linked together by their fascinating relevance to our daily lives.The topics explored in each chapter are based on hundreds of discussions the author has led with adult science learners over many years – people who came from all walks of life and had no scientific training, but had developed a burning curiosity to understand the world around them. This book encourages us to reflect on our own relationship with science and serves as an important reminder of why we should continue learning as adults.By an educationalist, rather than a scientfiic practitioner, chapter 5 has some useful comments.
There is a precedent:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Davis_(British_politician)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haltemprice_and_Howden_by-election,_2008#Analogous_UK_parliamentary_elections
Quote:A small number of previous by-elections have been initiated when the sitting MP resigned on a point of principle and stood for immediate re-election. This has occurred three times since the Second World War, the Lincoln by-election in 1973 and the Mitcham and Morden by-election in 1982 when the sitting MPs changed parties, and in 1986 when fifteen Northern Irish MPsresigned in protest against the Anglo-Irish Agreement. In addition in 1955 Sir Richard Acland resigned with the intention to re-contest Gravesend as an independent in protest against the Labour Party's support for nuclear weapons, but the 1955 general election overtook events and he lost.[7]At the 1997 general election, neither Labour nor the Liberal Democrats stood against the Conservatives in the seat of Tatton, urging their supporters to back the independent Martin Bell, over the Cash-for-questions affair.[8] Bell defeated Neil Hamilton and won the seat. In both the 2001 and 2005 general elections, the Liberal Democrats did not field a candidate in Wyre Forest, instead supporting the Health Concern candidate Richard Taylor.jondwhite wrote:Would a by-election be required if Goldsmith just left the Tories instead but remained as an independent MP?No, and technically MPs aren't allowed to resign (but it is becoming mor common): the method is to apply for a Crown Office which disqualifies them from Parliament:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resignation_from_the_British_House_of_Commons
jondwhite wrote:Would a by-election be required if Goldsmith just left the Tories instead but remained as an independent MP?No, and technically MPs aren't allowed to resign (but it is becoming mor common): the method is to apply for a Crown Office which disqualifies them from Parliament:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resignation_from_the_British_House_of_Commons
Quote:It allows users to conduct a private conversation away from the forum. Much like a telephone conversation.It allows the main forum to be focused on conversations relating to socialism rather than clogging up the main forum with discussion on the: deliberations of the moderators; complaints; private suggestions on moderation; and subjects which are irrevelant to the main forum.Hear, hear. I come to this forum to read about socialism and discuss socialist ideas, not to see five year olds complain that "Its not fairrrrrr!!!!"Obviously, one small problem is when the five year olds start whining, and breaking the rules, those of us who support them, can't post because we'd be breaking the rules. Especially my own ones about not gettign dragged into this infantile crap.
To go back to the original question: the article appears to be arguing that prices are not market derived, but simply set at a whim by businesses, as they are partial monopolies. That's about it. I think Varoufakis, and various Keynsians have argued this as well.There is some truth in the decoupling of the prices of specific goods from their value: for instance supermarkets price by consumer baskets, rather than by the specific good, loss leading heavily with some goods to try and draw out higher overall spending (who just buys a loaf of bread in a supermarket, the plan is to make you 'pick something up' while you're there).There is certainly plenty of rent seeking: many forms put a lot of store in Intellectual Property (IP) and other rent seeking behaviours. Marx did note that prices for non-reproducable goods are essentially arbitrary.The note of caution is that so long as capital markets function, and shares can be traded in firms, the administrative prices will tend to gravitate towards value and prices of production will still form the starting point of pricing.
ALB wrote:As you say, it's not binding, i.e is only a recommendation not an instruction. However, there is a Conference Resolution (from 1986) stating that if an EC decides not to follow a floor resolution they have to explain why to the Party:Quote:This Conference affirms that although Autumn Delegate Meeting recommendations are not necessarily binding on the EC, they are more representative of Party opinion than EC resolutions. Therefore the EC should take cognisance of such recommendations and give reasons for its failure to put such recommendations into effect.Actually, it's a bit stronger than that:
Rule 21 wrote:Addendum: Floor resolutions of Conference and ADM shall be recommendations only, though where the EC fails to implement such recommendations it will set out its reasons for not doing so in writing.Matt,the extra workload is part of the point: there is no incentive for moderators to put themselves through that unlss they need to. It should be reconsidered (it worked just fine when I used to do it on the Old Forum).
All of which is why I reckon that placing a member of the forum on pre-moderated is a better way forward than banning, we should investigate that option.
The French already have an individual legal right to strike, it hasn't brought us socialism. Slight joking aside, mine and ALB's suggestions really are backed with the idea that once you have a socialistically determined majority on side, and you can take control of the state, you have the power to abolish capitalism outright. If you can pass a law, you can abolish capitalism, so there's nop point in half measures.
