How the West eats its children

That is true for BOTH major parties here in the USA. When the extremist grass roots "tea party" tried to regain control of the GOP they were SUBVERTED by the Wall Street Casino Bosses using massive amounts of funding to turn them into anti Single Payer reactionaries.

The Progressives within the Dem party are well aware of this corrupt funding which is why they have SHUNNED it in their campaigns and actually raised RECORD AMOUNTS from individual donors. There is a struggle within the Dem party between the corrupt "moderates" and the Progressives.

At this stage the outcome is uncertain but I am rooting for the Progressives.

 

I see zero reason why we can't return to a far more accountable democratic system. What we have now (neoliberalism) is only four decades old and began with Margaret Thatcher. The idea built on reducing democratic accountability and elevating big business, the City and wealth over the needs of the many.

It's no way to round a country that is supposed to be democratic.

Indeed, but I only used the arms sector as an example of how privilege works. The question you need to ask about the ECGD (the government guarantee department) is why such a scheme is not available through the commercial insurance companies? I'm out of date on this these days but back in my time they just wouldn't take on the risk (in other words it was very, very risky) and I knew of many cases where weapons exported by Brit companies (there are only a few) weren't paid at all by the importing nation - and worse.... were sold on the basis that default was likely to happen - but with a government guarantee in place, the deal took place and the government (tax payers) de facto bought the weapons that were gifted to XYZ foreign nation.

That's no way to run a business.

But it is another example of how privilege works.

The whole thing about building our two QE Class of aircraft carriers and equipping them with the most expensive and failed aircraft in history speaks volumes about how national wealth (tax) is accrued and directed to the few. In the case of our nuclear missile submarine fleet I think the same very largely applies. This and it undoubtedly helps keep the old British cold-war group-think blowhards sitting at the top table. It prestige ego stroking and well-stuffed back-pockets to the fore. Any sensible nation that had a true feel for the people of their nation wouldn't even consider madness and corruption.

I can't speak for what is going on in France but on Brexit it is business and wealth that wish to remain in the EU - because it is inherently neoliberal in its attitude (think Greece) and fiecely anti-democratic (think Greece again too). You may consider reading Yanis Varoufakis' book Adults in the Room to get a first hand account of how unaccountable, how undemocratic and how corporate-centric the EU truly is.

 

Thanks mainly to the efforts of ITV and BBC we've become a nation of fools governed by self-seeking and self-serving political charlatans. There, I think that just about sums it up?

 

Yup. Sad ain't it, Cerb.

 

Indeed it is mate.It's all a bit different now than it was in our Fleet Street days, that's for sure.

 

Bernie said it and now matter how you want to spin it he self identifies as a socialist.

. "I am a socialist and everyone knows that,"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...y-pretty-ok-with-that/?utm_term=.2e31e7cd5abf

 

That statement is NOT THE SAME as the one that you brought up earlier. That you have devolved into moving the goalposts says volumes.

 

I said Bernie is a socialist you said he wasn't. I proved he is. It's you moving the goal post not I.

 

Which part of this statement are you battling to comprehend?

 

Bernie is a self avowed socialists and pushes a socialist policy so we agree

 

well...it is really however, the type of risk you are mentioning is for not really insurance, its a high level trade credit risk - its a financial guarantee which is not an insurance risk per se, however, there are similar products available if you choose the commercial route. Companies approach their insurance brokers all the time for similar options where they can apply a financial component to for example to a political risks or contract frustration insurance policy...JLT or Marsh for example have whole teams of international specialists with worldwide markets for this business.

But they did you just have to look at the oil industry as an example when in 1971 BP had its assets seized by Libya and there was a large Political Risks insurance payout from Lloyd's which covered the assets. Most of these large companies own their own "captive" insurance companies, I think BP's was/is called Tankerman so they operate in the financial/insurance markets through captive vehicles. Captive insurance companies are very common and can even work for certain types of individuals through captive management vehicles where you can come together collectively through a captive group but ring fence your own assets within the whole under a protected cell arrangement.

Is that any different to providing state loans to Africa where we know damned well that there is no chance of the loan being paid back but government gets to bask in that faux moral fuzzy warmth of public glow knowing they can say to the public we are supporting these poor down trodden Africans....with tax payers money....that would provide more benefit if we just burned it in old folks homes during hard winters...!!

I still don't see where you get this idea that business should be the solution to social problems? Where does the responsibility of business intersect with the issues of the failings of this neoliberalism for example? Take a silly situation for illustration - global warming is the buzz of the moment; oil and coal have been held up as the next thing to the anti-christ, the people wanted cheap energy but clean so government framed legislation and business models that taxed "dirty" energy and promoted clean energy indeed spending whole gobs of taxpayers money on subsidies and experimental programs etc etc so now we have a nascent clean energy industry which provides a more socially acceptable alternative albeit more expensive product than the traditional "dirty" energy. Now all of a sudden people are not happy with the cost of their energy so what do they want....they want cheaper energy! We had cheap energy but the people didn't want it!

All I can see are governments floundering around trying to be all to everyone and all that happens is unintended consequences where they have no narrative to offer. I agree with you that elites are the problem but I don't think they are the business elite they are the teflon political elites.

 

You are going on about YOUR label of Bernie and his policies. Bernie and the other poster are discussing what Bernie identifies himself and his policies as.

 

Ironic coming those who know less than nothing about Bernie and his CURRENT policies.

 

Actually the ECGD is insurance. I was in the trade finance business for years. It is known as "country risk" - and yes there are times when commercial insurance companies have got involved. But basically the first port of call was always the government's ECGD - overall the premium's were a lot cheaper and guarantee more flexible.

Agreed. I was speaking specifically about British exports though.

I think it is different inasmuch as UK state aid to foreign governments are not contingent on specific exports but to advance a general favourable attitude to the UK (these are not loans as you suggest but, at least as far as I understand it, grants). But I do agree with you that there is a certain degree of cross over here.

Business as a solution to social problems? God forbid. No, what I'm arguing is that big business needs to be able to stand on its own two feet and not privatise profit as well as socialise losses - and avoid ("evasion" in a different guise) tax by domiciling in offshore jurisdictions and using book transfers between domestic operations and the offshore holding company.

There are many examples where privatising profits and socialising losses has happened - most notably, for example, the UK government bailing out Brit banks with taxpayers money that were otherwise in clear risk of default -- because they largely engaged in casino operations and/or bought vast volumes of dodgy 'high yield" assets (inherently risky) and completely ignored their fiduciary responsibilities in the process. This enabled them to book profits this year, get massive bonuses for senior exec's and kick the default tin down the road for someone else to take care of (in this the British taxpayer). Of course the government were complicit in this too because regulators were incredibly soft (bordering on criminally irresponsible imo) on enforcing regulation.

I don't see it that way at all. I see the British government turning their back on their citizens in favour of adhering to a neoliberal economic model that inherently benefits big business. I have no problems at all with small and medium sized businesses at all as they usually get little to no benefit from government and generally pay their due taxes.

It's very different for big business. For example, Amazon UK turned over £5.3 billion in 2015 but only paid a tax-bill of £11.9 million on a declared profit of £34 million (HERE). This is utter nonsense and only benefits what we like to call "international investors" - in other words the uber-wealthy (but see below).

This is, for me a clear example of neoliberal economics. It's not a level playing field for big corporations and this is why we see 8 men owning the combined wealth of half the world's population (HERE).

This whole model draws, I think, from the Rhodes-Milner Kindergarden / the Oxford Group plans of the 1890's when the strategy was set for the wealthy "to accrue the wealth of the world". Following the end of the British empire post WWII, the shift of this long-term plan was then re-focused and revitalised in the USA - the infamous Anglo-American relationship (HERE).

 

Couldn't agree more! I underlined a bit of your comment and would go further in that most didn't understand the vehicles they were trading other that S&P and Bests et al applied an "A" rating to certain packaged tranches for which they had no rational basis to do this! They you have the bozos at AIG in Curzon Street happily underwriting all the options based on an "A" rating so that the merry fiasco can continue without anyone actually understanding what the fcuk they are actually underwriting or trading! No I agree it was a clusterfuck of galactic proportion. Then to have government step in and effectively say don't worry boys here's the GDP.....we know you're to big to fail....bars open....tuck in...bollocks to them.

This is where I think there is perhaps a morality difference between us. They way I view this is that business provides a product based on a demand for it, if nobody wants it they either ditch the product or move to another or they simply go out of business. In the main, obviously there are criminal exceptions, but generally speaking companies operate within a legal framework set out by government, regulators and international law. They have responsibility to their shareholders and stakeholders so will be responsible for those taxes that they are legally obliged to pay. Taking the Amazon example, they are not paying tax in the UK because they are not legally obliged to pay tax (other than what the are obliged to pay in PAYE etc) if they do that through financial offshore vehicles then as long as they are not illegal or their corporate structers permit it why shouldn't they? Why should they have demands made upon them from government or the press or public opinion above what their obligations require of them? Most large companies nowadays produce brochures about corporate social responsibility with front covers showing pictures of beaming black farmers hard at work in fairtrade farms or hard hatted executives in fields of wind farms trying to give the impression of public moral responsibility but to me that's all purile smoke and mirrors. They manufacture or provide goods and services to willing consumers so why not be proud of that! Governments like the people are consumers of these products, so to happily consume and then turn round and say "ah but our health service is screwed so you need to pay us because we think you are socially responsible" misses the point that these companies are not in the business of providing social responsibility. As I said I agree with you on the socialisation of loss, that was a huge crapfest - government should have turned around and shown them the door. I am all for companies to make profit through their efforts similarly I believe in economic Darwinism where nothing is to large to fail and indeed failure can often bring about a stronger more robust business model exactly because of failure. I would suggest that the fact that banks allowed government to bail them out has made a rod for the government in that now they have set a stupid precedent.

Unfortunately life isn't like that though, I guess we could look at the competing views of Kant or Rawls but would they give us any insight into the real world of merit and how talent really works other that an implied moral duty? So 8 men own a truck load of cash...I have no issue with that. When they die it gets dispersed and new wealth takes over...what I would be interested to me is how they use that wealth...take Gates for example I understand he is a great philanthropist...he's earned a pile through his endeavors and is now doing something "good" with it as opposed to someone like Mugabe for example? If all the natural wealth and resources in Africa had been husbanded in a manner for the people by the people rather than being hoarded and abused by small cabal based on greed and petty tribalism then the whole continent would probably have no need for Oxfam!
No I have no real issue with there being "uber" wealthy people.

Thanks for that and the link I'll have a look at that.

 

I think Bernie is pretty much the most qualified expert in the world as to Bernies current policies. If you don't believe Bernie is a socialist advocating for socialist policies, your argument is with him.

 

I agree entirely. However, the problem is that a great many people do not see that they are being manipulated; they don't have the time in a busy life to learn about how media and political manipulation plays out.

I wish it were different.

 

Today's Great British Public are more interested in the sports pages at the back, than front-page news.

 

I hold severe doubts that senior bankers did not understand the nature of the assets they were holding and trading. I suspect this is a classic media excuse to avoid tackling the greed and fraud that took place. I knew back in the Nineties that a collapse of this nature was inevitable (only the timing of it was unknown) because of the massive excess of gearing that was common place. In the last analysis, the senior investment bankers knew they were peddling crap that would one day blow up but the profits they made for their banks "this" year and the bonuses they took home year on year from these profits were far too massive to ignore.

The problem here is that the tail now wags the dog - not the other way around.

Big business and wealth direct and control government. In the US for example, it is the wealthy who are the controlling elite (HERE) and who direct government (and, therefore, regulators etc) and who manipulate the political process - and not as most of us think (and perhaps would prefer) that government controls big business (HERE).

I think it is also safe to conclude that much the same thing is now happening in the UK. It is certainly the case in the EU where actual democracy doesn't apply (the European Parliament being a de facto rubber stamp).

If 8 men can own the same wealth as half the world's population and this is not the moral and ethical issue of our time I don't what is.

 

So much wisdom in so few words, SH?

 

Why is the acquisition of wealth a moral or ethical issue and when is it determined that the quantity of wealth acquired exceeds the moral expectations of society? Would it be morally acceptable if for example these 8 owned a quarter or a 10th of the population's wealth - where does it become morally or ethically acceptable and who would be the arbiter of that acceptability - who decides when enough is enough? It can't be governments as you are already arguing that there is a common link between corporations and those in power; governments are in the pockets of big business. So society as a whole cannot by default be in a position to provide a pragmatic assessment or solution, so do we sub-contract that moral issue to an independent committee or some third party organisation like the church for example?

I suggested in my earlier post that for me the legal acquisition of wealth through endeavour is in itself not an issue but that the concern is to what purpose that wealth is used; the power of money if you like. Could we argue that it was morally acceptable for say Pablo Escobar, by creating his drugs empire, he benefited and enriched the lives of many destitute Colombian farmers at the expense of wealthy westerners??

I'm not convinced that there is something immoral or unethical about becoming wealthy through honest endeavour even if that means having accrued more wealth than half the worlds population! What I find perhaps immoral or unethical is governments and officials allowing themselves to be prostituted by the wealth and largesse of certain organisations like lobby groups who for example pay for access and influence. That for me is a failing of the government's compact with the people by creating a supply at a price to which they know there is a ready demand.

 

Each one of us must make their own determination.

I, personally, cannot sit silently by watching enormous death, destruction and outright murder around the planet so that the executives and investors in the the defence industry can buy a new yacht or commission the construction of their Fifth mansion on an idyllic Caribbean island that enables them to escape from the great unwashed.

I also cannot sit silently and watch tens and hundreds of thousands die from starvation and / or the lack of potable water so that the Bill Gates of this world can upgrade their private airplane to shuffle them in luxurious comfort from one asset centre to another.

On the matter of governments; when these stop representing the wishes, desires and needs of the many to benefit the few - and use the tax take of the many to help achieve this - then they have lost their right to govern.

Endeavour? An interesting choice of term. Lots of us endeavour and lots work exceptionally hard, but only a very, very few are able to acquire vast (and unnecessary) wealth.

There is an interesting film that covers the story of Escobar - albeit fictionally. It recommend it highly. Go to 1:46 on the following clip (and then track back to the beginning to get answers to what she saw up that tunnel if you wish?):



For me the question that needs to be asked about the drug epidemic is why so many people in the West (usually the poorest people too) got hooked on drugs.

In this regard I heartily recommend (yup, I'm in a recommending mood, sorry) reading Gary Webb's Dark Alliance series (read about it HERE) and also watch the film Kill The Messenger featuring Jeremy Renner. Likewise Prof. Alfred McCoy's seminal work The Politics of South East Asia and also Prof. Peter Dale Scott's outstanding book Cocaine Politics: Drugs, Armies and the CIA in Central America.

I appreciate it's a lot of reading and investment and few will care to undertake this task. But if anyone truly wishes to understand how the narcotics industry grew to become the monster it has, these books and series of articles are essential reading.

One can get into all sorts of philosophical discussions about this subject, but we can do worse than consider just what narcotics do. The definition of narcotic is:

"a drug which induces stupor, drowsiness or insensibility."

Ergo it temporarily enables the user to escape from their reality. One presumes this is because their reality is just too awful to live through.

I have two thoughts here. Firstly I'm not talking about just "wealthy". I have no problem with wealth. But what I'm talking about is wealth of an order so incomprehensibly massive that it is obscene. One billion dollars (in dollar bills) stacked on top of each other would reach 63 miles high (HERE). Bill Gates has 95 billion I understand. That measures 5,985 miles high or long. That's further than the distance between London and Los Angeles and over two thirds of the diameter of this planet of ours.

The other thought is to consider the relativity of endeavour versus the rewards of endeavour?

In closing I have to say that we are simply scratching the surface - if that - of each of these subjects and that's all we can do on a forum. Deeper insights are a requirement and terms need to be defined to avoid misunderstanding.

 

Yes, maybe there's better ones but I tried to use it as an all encompassing word to suggest the motivation of an honest work ethic where one employs ones own innate talents and advantages and employs them in a productive and beneficial way rather than just for simple greed the prime motivator being avarice. Does that work?

True but working hard comes in many forms and honest toil is a virtuous thing but so is innovation or invention. Life is the ultimate lottery and you can only employ the cards you are dealt with; some have talent for sport, some for the arts, some for science and some are born not so smart, however, that is not to say they are not productive. They toil hard, make friends, earn a living wage to support family and have a great life surrounded by those family and friends some are highly developed but find it difficult living in society and become isolated and commit suicide...all possibilities exist. Is a meritocracy that allows those that work hard and achieve wealth from their endeavour such anathema to society? Are we to just say that whatever talents one has or however smart one is they cannot benefit any more significantly than any other person no matter what? Where is the motivation to succeed or innovate?

in that vein....

...and the re-distribution? The various competing theories of distributive justice are a fascinating topics but in terms of practical application it becomes.... well...difficult.