Young Master Smeet
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
There will always be some profitable lines of industry, but the problems come from seizing up the lines of credit. Primary accumulation can still occur (principly through mass bunkruptcy). Servicing mega slums (and reaping the benefits of falling wages). When servants become cheapr than new toys tech advance slows down.
This is interesting:http://socialisteconomicbulletin.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/the-mystery-surrounding-productivity.html
Quote:n the UK productive capacity is being scrapped. This is not because there is no unsatisfied demand in the UK economy. On the contrary, there is both a scarcity of necessities, such as in housing and healthcare and other areas, as well as a large trade deficit. The productive capacity is being scrapped because its owners cannot make profits, or do not anticipate sufficient profits in a situation of growing competition and sluggish growth in consumption, for example in the steel industry. To survive and prosper, the owners of the UK steel industry would have to leap towards the front of global productivity or technical quality through very large scale investment and they are unwilling or unable to do so. A reduction in the stock of capital is one way in which capital can overcome declining profitability. Marx identified some of the others as increasing the working day, which is happening in the UK and US but not elsewhere. Other factors which can offset falling profitability are a reduction in the cost of capital goods (the means of production), a reduction of (real) wages, increasing the division of labour through the growth of foreign trade or by boosting profits through increased financial speculation.Socialist Economic Bulletin is Socialist Action, i.e. Ken Livingstone and friends, who are the group around Corbyn, so this is close to inhouse thinking of the Labour leadership (as suggested also by the bklog post that follows this one). The analysis seems sound, the issue is capital and profitability.
Vin wrote:Is a personal account.But, as you can see, this does demonstrate the need for a register of authorised accounts. And from authorising, taken steps to secure ownership, and co-ordination between operators.
Ramsay MacDonald wrote:Thus the banking business of the nation and
of all the municipalities (the local banks could be
grouped into districts), would be done by national
and municipal departments which would deal with
the financial side of all their enterprises and receive
deposits. These banks would also keep the indus-
trial accounts, and act as financial secretaries of local
industries. Thus, national and municipal .finance
would be systematized, financial parasitism ended,
and a capitcd pool be accumulated as a reservoir from
which an efficient system of production could be kept
going, and the financial business of government
transacted. The function of finance must be
co-ordinated with those of government and
production.https://ia902703.us.archive.org/34/items/socialismcritic00macdgoog/socialismcritic00macdgoog.pdf
Ramsay MacDonald wrote:The State performs a necessary function.
It is part of social economy, and this throws
a new light upon taxation. The State re-
quires an income, and this need not, as
the individualist economists maintained,
be taken of necessity from individual
incomes. It is earned just as much
as a personal income is earned.https://archive.org/stream/socialismgovernm01macd/socialismgovernm01macd_djvu.txt
Ramsay MacDonald wrote:The principle that each should contribute to the
State revenues according to his ability is of secondary
importance to the Socialist, to whom the fundamental
principle of the levying of State income is that the
State should secure for its own use the values that
are created by the existence and activity of the
State.https://archive.org/stream/socialism616macd/socialism616macd_djvu.txt
So much for Harold Wilson Warmed up – step forward, the Pale Shadow of Ramsay MacDonald…
http://press.labour.org.uk/post/140383112424/jeremy-corbyn-mp-leader-of-the-labour-party-in-aFull speech.
Quote:To shape that new economy we need to work together. It is only through effective co-operation between government and business, state and markets, public and private, education and enterprise. That we can build an economy for the future that delivers for all.Quote:Labour’s alternative will put investment first. We will only borrow to invest over the business cycle.(Gordon Brown said that too, as did Milliband).
Quote:We want to see a genuinely mixed economy of public and social enterprise along with long-term private business commitment that will provide the decent pay, jobs, housing, schools, health and social care of the future.!! And people used to ask why we were standing against him, because he is "A Socialist"!
Quote:Wealth creation is a collective process between workers, public investment and services, and creative individuals and businesses.Actually, now he's freelance, I wonder if we could snare him into a debate? "Which way to postcapitalism?" or somesuch?
Quote:Back here in the UK the ‘worship leader’ of the New Chapel Unitarian meeting place in Denton, Manchester was preparing to carry out their first transgender baptism. (Yes, we’ve come across this before in the Halo-Halo column, see July 2015 issue). But this time it concerns a 10 year-old child. Yes, baptisms are regularly carried out on small children, we know, but a transgender baptism being inflicted on a 10 year old?Sorry, I'm confused, by this one. What's different from a normal baptism? If the child identifies as trans, then they are just re-doing the baptism with the new gender.
Quote:Their decision has thrilled the girl who will be baptised. In a statement released last night, she said: “I am so happy that they have now said I can be baptised because although I was previously baptised, it was as a boy, with a different name. I feel as though it was not really me who was baptised, but somebody else. At the moment I feel separate from God and as a child who has a strong faith I want to be close to Him.”Indeed:
Quote:Also for a variety of reasons all the Ulster Unionist MPs at Westminster voted against the Act. They preferred that all or most of Ulster would remain fully within the United Kingdom, accepting the proposed northern Home Rule state only as the second best option.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_Ireland_Act_1920Pretty much a wholly unecessary war, fought largely over who would rule the independent Ireland.
Quote:We can agree with the revisionist historians that the myth of the Easter Rising needs debunking. The Irish Republican tradition has been harmful and anti-working class but then so has Unionism. However, those who argue that a peaceful transition to Home Rule and an independent state was likely had it not been for the Easter Rising are assuming that the Unionists in the North would have accepted this without resorting to violence (as they had done before the war, introducing more guns into politics than the Nationalists).Arguably, though, partition could have happened relatively bloodlessly. That much was almost certainly inevitable. Although the Home Rule Act was parked for the duration of the war, some version of home rule would certainlty have come about (maybe something that would have looked much like Scotland today).
All in bar one last seat (which may fall to Labour and save their bacon as a technical group in the dail). I'm beginningt o wonder if the main parties are suffering from not using STV to full effect: they are consistently under nominating, in order to retain a degree of patronage over who gets seats, but if they nominated more candidates than seats, which would weakn party discipline a little, it would probably pay dividends and squeeze out some of those Maverick independents.Noticeably a lot of independents are ex-party, mostly to the right. I think FG will be the government, backed by idnependentsm – people are talking minority administration, which would probably requrie confidence and supply from FF.
Vin wrote:Apologies if I have misrepresented or misinterpreted your views, YMS, but I can;t think of any other way your propositions could be put into practicePut the short way, it's about being able to sack social media account operators, not micromanage them.
http://analysis.rte.ie/european/2016/02/29/the-hat-trick-three-epp-prime-ministers-struggle-in-post-bailout-elections/Good points here. There is a trend…
Vin wrote:Matt is a member of the Internet Committee. The IC knows what's best and who should use what account. I believe this is what YMS means by 'party control' of accounts. Some small committee with the authority to instruct branches on twitter activity and in possession of all our passwordsI don't think there will be much support for that.No, it isn't. I set it out above:
Quote:1) Holding an authorised list of what are 'official' party accounts.2) Ensuring that no one person has exclusive access to those accounts.3) Ensuring that twitter account operators are clear in their obligations to the membership4) Having the capacity to remove an account operator by the responsible bodies (EC or branches).5) Having a clear process for appointing removing and complaining about social media account operators.https://twitter.com/RTEdubSCENTRAL/status/704631683941834752Dublin South Central's last seat (Anti-Austerity Alliance v. FF), 170 disputed ballots: see, spoiling votes does have an effect…
I've been trolling them in the Islington Tribune:http://www.islingtontribune.com/1916heroesA reply: http://www.islingtontribune.com/cashfreeutopiaMy reply: http://www.islingtontribune.com/irishindependenceI have no plans to try and sell this issue in The Boston Arms. Might go in and leave it, maybe, but I'd have to run…
