Economic recovery - a marxist perspective

synd

The current gov in conjunction with developers having caused a speculative crisis are now in the process of ushering in a wave of cutbacks designed to make the general population pay the cost. NAMA has been initiated as a method of offsetting upper class debt onto the public, the est is between 80-90 billion. This is in effect the greatest appropriation of public wealth in Irish history since the confiscations enacted under the Cromwellian plantation. NAMA is purportedly an objective body, an assertion undermined by an obvious glance at its membership.The economist behind the scheme is a man named Kevin Bacon - former director of Ballymore Properties the largest shareholder of which Sean Mulryan was a main sponsor of Finna Fail. Needless to say their will be no transparency in NAMAs dealings.

In conjunction with the bailouts are the govs attempts to cut back so as to increase Ireland's ''competitivnes'' on the global market. Wages are being slashed, vital social supports are being scrapped ect. The theory behind this autistry and fiscal restraint is pure neo-liberal economics, ie low taxation in conjunction with a low social wage will attract investment. However this approach entails irroconsilable flaws considering the general dysfunction of the capitalist market. First of all - reductions in wage and reductions in social welfare act to dry up demand ie. people don't spend. The economist Kaynes correctly observed that wage reductions invariably deepen recessions - this is why the US is engaging in fiscal stimuli's and uk quantitative easing. While neo-liberals argue these measures result in inflation (there is actually no relationship) - it is worth noting that high inflation is generally preferred by people to high unemployment - a fact that sits uneasy with liberals.

Moreover - reductions in wage and taxation result in overseas markets pursuing the same course. For instance eastern European nations are lowering their tax rates and can provide far lower wages than Ireland. Needless to say that In order to become competitive with eastern European labor markets Ireland will need more than wage reductions in the region of 10%. Even if ireland could reduce its wages to such low levels do the neo-liberal economists of ireland seriously think Estonian capitalists would stand idle ? no - they would lower wages in suit.

In response to this problem liberal economists typically cite bull**** catchphrases about (quality labor) and the (smart economy) ect. this is hot air, nothing more. Supposing for the sake of the argument that an Irish worker was on average 5% more productive (due to eduction) than an estonian worker - provided the profit derived from savings in terms of lower wage and low taxation surpassed the amount accumulated due to the 5% - there would for the capitalist be no incentive to stay in Ireland, despite ''higher quality''. This is a problem neo-liberals are unable to address, without recourse to the notion that we should somehow lower our living standards to Indian levels.

Essentially the problem is not with the mismanagement of the capitalist system - it is capitalism itself. So long as we adhere to neo-liberal orthodoxies and except the pretentious yelps of liberal dogs working in the interests of the global elite that (there is no alternative) we are all in for immeasurable suffering. Its about time that the myths of capitalist economics where laid bare and people took matters into their own hands. I would advocate an alternative economy - based on sustainibility, democratic organization of the workplace and public ownership of capital.

Sand

Given that Ireland has effectively been governed by and for the "social partners" for the last 10 years, and that economic actors have taken into account government intervention in the market (tax breaks, incentives, moral hazard of state "bailouts") Im not quite sure what you would call the economic system in Ireland. Im pretty sure it is not neo-liberal capitalism however.

Perhaps the real lesson is that despite the "social partners" efforts to plan, control and manage the economy the lacked the information and knowledge to do so.

Keynsian economics are effectively inapplicable to Ireland. We are a tiny, open economy in a free trade zone. You deride competition, but we have tried the "lets all build houses, and sell them to each other" domestic demand route. Didnt really work out.

Supposing for the sake of the argument that an Irish worker was on average 5% more productive (due to eduction) than an estonian worker - provided the profit derived from savings in terms of lower wage and low taxation surpassed the amount accumulated due to the 5% - there would for the capitalist be no incentive to stay in Ireland, despite ''higher quality''. This is a problem neo-liberals are unable to address, without recourse to the notion that we should somehow lower our living standards to Indian levels.

****s sake - a 3 year old can address that. What happens as investment and demand for labour flow to Estonia? Demand goes up, but supply is relatively fixed (population growth)...wages go up. Estonia becomes less wage competitive, and its richer workforce start consuming...perhaps even consuming Irish products. We are seeing massive economic growth in Asia and Eastern Europe, and over time their populations will become richer, population growth will subside, middle classes will emerge and economic demand will rise above bread and water. Which is where Irish workers, in industries we can compete in show up.

anonymous_joe

Remind me, isn't Marxism the system where a lazy worker earns as much as a hard worker, thus causing the hard worker to become demoralised and become dragged down to the lazy worker's level?

That'll help us outperform those pesky capitalists.

synd

Given that Ireland has effectively been governed by and for the "social partners" for the last 10 years, and that economic actors have taken into account government intervention in the market (tax breaks, incentives, moral hazard of state "bailouts") Im not quite sure what you would call the economic system in Ireland. Im pretty sure it is not neoliberal capitalism however.

Neoliberalism in practice diverts somewhat from neoliberalism in theory. While proponents constantly espouse the hands off approach the history of neo-liberal policy essentially exposes it as a method of privatizing profit and socializing risk. As for social partnership - Iv never seen the point in forging an allegiance with a group who you should be trying to get rid off.

Perhaps the real lesson is that despite the "social partners" efforts to plan, control and manage the economy the lacked the information and knowledge to do so. Keynsian economics are effectively inapplicable to Ireland. We are a tiny, open economy in a free trade zone. You deride competition, but we have tried the "lets all build houses, and sell them to each other" domestic demand route. Didnt really work out.

The end of liberal hegemony must be a pain in the arse. The overproduction of houses was caused by financial de-regulation. Expectation of profit without any consideration of rational quantification/planning - capitalism in its speculation of future conditions leads to overproduction. In conjunction with the practice of leverage - business being predicated upon credit while the gov ensured laws be structured to facilitate borrowings being written off ect. Capitalism and its inherent lack of co-ordination is what (didn't really work out).

****s sake - a 3 year old can address that. What happens as investment and demand for labour flow to Estonia? Demand goes up, but supply is relatively fixed (population growth)...wages go up. Estonia becomes less wage competitive, and its richer workforce start consuming...perhaps even consuming Irish products. We are seeing massive economic growth in Asia and Eastern Europe, and over time their populations will become richer, population growth will subside, middle classes will emerge and economic demand will rise above bread and water. Which is where Irish workers, in industries we can compete in show up.

Typical liberal bollox. The immediate consequence of capital re-location will obviously be high unemployment and a massive decrease in living standards, demand will fall given the reduction in consumer spending caused by the decrease in overall capital circulation - (debt crisis taken into consideration). The average Irish wage is 5 times more than the average polish - ie. to become competitive with them we would require an 80% wage cut. Moreover, during the actual process of wage reduction, capitalists won't invest due to their expectation that wages will be cut to a further extent, as pointed out by Keynes. All this exasperated by the fact that a large % of TNCs that established here are from US. The Obama admin is due to proceed with protectionism - which they will become increasingly more pressurized to engage in so as to forward the rescue, while being squeezed as China withdraws its funds in order to ward off social unrest via stimulation. Major upheaval is on the agenda as more people realize the stupidity of a system that ensures bread factories stand vacated while bakers are unemployed and people want bread. Long live the demystification that exposes your system as being irrational in its allocation of resources - oh yea, and **** the market Gods - :eek:

ashleey

I'm no pinko leftie but did anyone see that they are making tent cities in america to shelter the newly homeless while the banks are having houses that were seized as collateral demolished because it was cheaper for them in the long run? Seems a bit of a waste.

P. Breathnach

anonymous_joe wrote: »

Remind me, isn't Marxism the system where a lazy worker earns as much as a hard worker, thus causing the hard worker to become demoralised and become dragged down to the lazy worker's level?

That'll help us outperform those pesky capitalists.

The naivety of some of the arguments made in favour of Marxism is exceeded only by the naivety of arguments made against it.

Sand

Neoliberalism in practice diverts somewhat from neoliberalism in theory. While proponents constantly espouse the hands off approach the history of neo-liberal policy essentially exposes it as a method of privatizing profit and socializing risk.

I am not in favour of socialising risk. Let the banks burn. Its those who see a strong economic role for the state in every aspect of the economy that think the state must get involved...further perpetuating the moral hazard.

As I've noted already, given the extensive "social partners" role in the economic direction of the state, Ireland is not a neo-liberal economy. In a neo-liberal economy the idea of NAMA or nationalisation wouldnt even arise...more than likely because in a neo-liberal economy banks that didnt manage their risk effectively would already be dead.

AIB for example required a bailout in the 1980s. The moral hazard of the state as an economic actor merely put NAMA in the post for our current generation. Imagine if AIB had been left to go to the wall then? Would we be borrowing 60-90 billion to bail them out now?

And while you might say that "state" banks might be run better than private banks, more in tune with the needs of the population, on a more sustainable basis remember that the construction boom was state policy for the past 10 years. Bertie Ahern is totally honest on this point. Houses being built in the middle of no where, banks lending recklessly to developers, banks lending recklessly to home buyers...all of this was state policy.

As for social partnership - Iv never seen the point in forging an allegiance with a group who you should be trying to get rid off.

Agreed - whatever else, the Dail has an electoral mandate. Begg is a director of a bank. Not quite the same mandate. The Dail ought to be crushing the unions, not inviting them to run the country.

The end of liberal hegemony must be a pain in the arse. The overproduction of houses was caused by financial de-regulation.

Nope, it was caused as a result of government incentivisation of massive production of housing. Read up on the various tax breaks, and the lack of planning or provision of services. Even listen to Bertie Ahern. He is surprisingly frank that as far as he was concerned the objective was to get more and more houses built. That was his economic policy.

The construction industry was on its knees before the government intervened - they planted the seeds for the bubble and the misallocation of resources. The builders and developers and even the banks merely responded rationally to the incentives that the government provided.

You are paradoxically underestimating the effect (good or bad) of govenment economic and fiscal policy on the economy whilst simultaneously calling for more...

Typical liberal bollox. The immediate consequence of capital re-location will obviously be high unemployment and a massive decrease in living standards, demand will fall given the reduction in consumer spending caused by the decrease in overall capital circulation - (debt crisis taken into consideration).

You are just restating yourself here, and assuming that Irish labour...if it cant be employed in an unproductive and inefficient industry simply sits about on its hands and doesnt retrain or move into other productive and efficient industries. This is a common fault I see with marxist thought - its frozen. Christ, Ive already switched careers three times and Im still in my twenties

The average Irish wage is 5 times more than the average polish - ie. to become competitive with them we would require an 80% wage cut.

Again, this is a frozen view point.

- I've worked with Polish people and in Poland. I think theyre great, but I am very much aware I worked with a subset of the Polish workforce - not the average. Irish workers still retain key advantages in particular areas over them that can be marketed, and charged for at a premium.

- Business enviroments in Poland and Ireland are not the same. Wage costs are not the be all and end all. The low corporation tax (for example) is a massive aid.

- Youre locked into a one sided view. Irish wages go down, but Polish wages remain fixed? Why wouldnt increased demand in Poland for relatively fixed labour supply not lead to increasing wages in Poland? And lead to increasing demand in Poland for consumer goods?

- You talk about decreasing Irish spending due to decreasing wage income, but if the sprocket factory moves from Ireland to Poland to get cheaper production costs, the Irish population can now buy cheaper sprockets...and assuming theyre not sitting on their hands wishing for a new sprocket factory to open...be relatively richer.

Moreover, during the actual process of wage reduction, capitalists won't invest due to their expectation that wages will be cut to a further extent, as pointed out by Keynes.

This is only the case if capitalists consider it to be very difficult to renegotiate wages in light of economic circumstances...for example, a highly unionised workforce. This is a concern in countries like Germany, where even in the good times companies do not hire many staff because they know it will be next to impossible to lay them off in the bad times.

The problem here is trade unions. Again.

All this exasperated by the fact that a large % of TNCs that established here are from US. The Obama admin is due to proceed with protectionism - which they will become increasingly more pressurized to engage in so as to forward the rescue, while being squeezed as China withdraws its funds in order to ward off social unrest via stimulation.

Id be surprised if protectionism comes to pass - government so far have been strong in avoiding disastrous efforts to destroy world trade. Most would recognise the protectionist acts in the 30s as what caused the Great Depression.

Its populist to say "British Jobs for British Workers" to quote Gordon Brown, but even Brown knows the reality is that trade is good.

Major upheaval is on the agenda as more people realize the stupidity of a system that ensures bread factories stand vacated while bakers are unemployed and people want bread.

Bread factories stand empty with unemployed bakers because the people who want bread can get it cheaper from better bakers who produce more bread, to a higher quality at lower cost.

Your plan would either create a failed business or force people to pay more for their bread than they ought to...misallocating resources in both cases.

Long live the demystification that exposes your system as being irrational in its allocation of resources - oh yea, and **** the market Gods -

Please...Marxism is an exercise in wishful thinking.

anonymous_joe

P. Breathnach wrote: »

The naivety of some of the arguments made in favour of Marxism is exceeded only by the naivety of arguments made against it.

Simple, rather than naive.

And no more so than a marxist perspective.

In the first paragraph of his piece the OP decries the corrupt government and property developers gambolling hand in hand towards economic ruin, and forcing our brave proletariat to face privations they don't deserve.

He finishes off by demanding public ownership of capital - now does that mean that every decision requires all of us to pass judgement on the utilisation of capital, or does it require teh appointment of another government...

Morever, marxism tends not to lend itself well to democratic organisation of anything. The flaws of corporate led business our well known, it's not perfect, nothing is, but why would a 'democratically led' workplace (i.e. one run by the workers for the workers) be any better? I can see some major flaws in that idea.

As for decrying the government for suggesting we reduce wages, and how wage reductions deepen recessions, that's absolutely true, but it misses out on a larger point - Ireland's a tiny country, and one that's highly reliant on other countries - more than anything, we rely on external markets buying products we produce (pharmaceuticals, computers and the like) married to our services industry. A large chunk of that is reliant on external factors, so our economy can quite conceivably be rescued by external demand for our goods anyway. Assuming we lower wages a bit to keep them.

astrofool

On the wages:
Our problem is not that we're uncompetitive with Eastern Europe and Asia.

Our problem is that we're uncompetitive compared to the western world, U.K, U.S.A, Germany, France etc.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Yixian

There's a difference between using marxism to understand the current state of the economy and "being a communist" or "supporting communism in Ireland". Indeed many marxist theories such as the decrease in rate of profit and bust-cycle are as universally agreed upon by real capitalists as they are communists - it is simply the most logical and rational way to view the relationship between society and the economy.

The difference is free market capitalists believe that various safe-guards can prevent the marxist prediction of periodic depressions from occurring. That doesn't change the fact that even if their infinite boom-bust-cycle theory works, you're still accepting that there have to be busts.

Also I want to point out, as a communist myself, I would not support a communist revolution in any country of the world other than China or perhaps the United States.

Marxism holds that only the most powerful and industrialised nation on earth is prepared for a communist state in which all wealth is owned by the public via. the state. When you try it in a third world country, or even a small European country like Ireland, you'll find yourself marginalised and economically isolated. At the time the Russian Revolution occurred, the richest, most industrialised state was Germany - Russia was in no condition for communism.

Democratic socialism would be the ideal route for these nations - big government, the highest possible degree of democracy within the constraints of multi-party democracy, high tax and public spending and all public services nationalised, but with a regulated banking system and a free market private sector.



And as for the "lazy worker" comment, it's a shame to see people still base their social philosophies on resentment and bitterness. Dehumanisation at it's most ugly.

Salvelinus

Are there more Irish bars in New York or Havana?

Yixian

Salvelinus wrote: »

Are there more Irish bars in New York or Havana?

Probably about equal

Interestingly, but obviously not entirely rightly, Ireland is synonymous with the far left in many countries. To France it has always been it's spiritual ally against those damn conservative anglos, to much of South America it has always been the rebel of Europe. In Africa the Irish are often considered like brothers.

After all Ché was half irish, and his father once said of him "in my son's veins flows the blood of Irish rebels".

In the US Irish-America is associated with liberal but decidedly free market entrepreneurism, as well as left wing unionism (not the NI kind of unionism xD).

It's really interesting, Ireland is one of those rare countries that is all things to all men in terms of people's perceptions abroad. Even it's stereotypes are contradictory; on the one hand scholarly authors, on the other drunks. Both the police, and the mob.

/derail

irish_bob

Yixian wrote: »

Probably about equal

Interestingly, but obviously not entirely rightly, Ireland is synonymous with the far left in many countries. To France it has always been it's spiritual ally against those damn conservative anglos, to much of South America it has always been the rebel of Europe. In Africa the Irish are often considered like brothers.

After all Ché was half irish, and his father once said of him "in my son's veins flows the blood of Irish rebels".

In the US Irish-America is associated with liberal but decidedly free market entrepreneurism, as well as left wing unionism (not the NI kind of unionism xD).

It's really interesting, Ireland is one of those rare countries that is all things to all men in terms of people's perceptions abroad. Even it's stereotypes are contradictory; on the one hand scholarly authors, on the other drunks. Both the police, and the mob.

/derail

a pretty accurate historical synopsis

synd

Marxism holds that only the most powerful and industrialised nation on earth is prepared for a communist state in which all wealth is owned by the public via. the state. When you try it in a third world country, or even a small European country like Ireland, you'll find yourself marginalised and economically isolated. At the time the Russian Revolution occurred, the richest, most industrialised state was Germany - Russia was in no condition for communism.

I agree that it is by far preferable for socialism to be enacted in the industrial core (trade embargoes considered) however, I do think a spark can be initiated from any region within the developed world. Economic development could conceivably be facilitated by trading outside the (usual circuits).

Democratic socialism would be the ideal route for these nations - big government, the highest possible degree of democracy within the constraints of multi-party democracy, high tax and public spending and all public services nationalised, but with a regulated banking system and a free market private sector.

I disagree with the social dem line - in that revenue required to enact social redistribution is entirely dependent on the rate of exploitation ect. This leads to social democrats supporting reactionary policy in order to enact their ''social justice''. Lenin was also correct to conceptualize it as a means used to reduce class antagonisms - extract from capitalism the highest stage of imperialism - largely in reference to the menshivicks

Obviously, out of such enormous superprofits (since they are obtained over and above the
profits which capitalists squeeze out of the workers of their "own" country) it is possible
to bribe the labour leaders and the upper stratum of the labour aristocracy. And that is
just what the capitalists of the "advanced" countries are doing: they are bribing them in a
thousand different ways, direct and indirect, overt and covert. This stratum of workers-turned-bourgeois, or the labour aristocracy, who are quite philistine in their mode of life, in the size of their earnings and in their entire outlook, is the principal prop of the Second International, and in our days, the principal social (not military) prop of the bourgeoisie. For they are the real agents of the bourgeoisie in the working-class movement, the labour lieutenants (David Beggs) of the capitalist class, real vehicles of reformism and chauvinism. In the civil war between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie they inevitably, and in no small numbers. take the side of the bourgeoisie, the "Versaillese" against the "Communards".

Unless the economic roots of this phenomenon are understood and its political and social
significance is appreciated, not a step can be taken toward the solution of the practical
problem of the communist movement and of the impending social revolution. - Lenin

And as for the "lazy worker" comment, it's a shame to see people still base their social philosophies on resentment and bitterness. Dehumanisation at it's most ugly.

Word

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

synd

The problem is not the slashing of wages now, but the fact that wages reached such absurdly dizzying heights in the first place. Did you really think that the lavish wage increases that were extorted by the social partners, and funded from the cream from a property boom, were actually sustainable? recently that "workers in Dublin earn the fourth highest wages globally after New York, Geneva, and Zurich."

Actually according to the OCED benefits and wages database Irish private sector wages are around 11% below the EU15 average. Employers benefit from the lowest social security contributions in Europe standing at 10% compared to 45% in France or 35% in Italy. Irish workers work nearly three weeks more per year than their European counterparts. Im really perplexed as to the suggestion that we are in someway ''uncompetitive'' with our European counterparts.

extorted by the social partners

You mean re-appropriated and partially re-invested back into social circulation in the form of public facilities/services. Although a large percentile goes back into the hands of the upper class in terms of the inflated wages payed to those in administrative positions.

As for the alleged slashing of "vital" social supports, I would like you please to give a listing of the allegedly "vital" services that have been removed.

I happen to think educational supports for disabled kids can be classified as vital - but then again thats just my twisted marxist opinion.

from the private sector to an inflated and grossly inefficient public sector?

The most comprehensive review of the Irish public sector was carried out by the OCED in 2008. Public spending increased 30% between 1995 and 2005. It did not entail an increase in borrowings, rather was retrieved from the greater share of surplus. Ireland ran a huge budget surplus until 2007. According to the OCED Ireland ranks third lowest with regards public expenditure in % of the GDP -ahead only of South Korea and Mexico. As far as the pensions go public sector workers pay 6 and a half % of their wage towards it - where private sector schemes exist the average rate is 5%. Higher clerical officers for instance start on 24,255py and over the course of twelve years hit 36,977py - the average industrial wage. Support officers in an-post start at 24,024 - after 14 years reach 36,087. There (are) however administrators and consultants that receive astronomical wages - academics in UCD on 400,000py and many university admins on 250,000py. When these are calculated into the average it can naturally distort the overall picture.

However, people are far better off today than at any other time in our history. Dispute that if you will -- but anyone who remembers life in Ireland in 1985 or before will have a grand time ripping you to shreds.

True - and slaves where better off in early 19th century than in the 18th century, I don't consider that a justification for slavery. Likewise the USSR saw a huge increase in living standards, regardless I don't consider this a reason to agree with the general system. State capitalism has quite clearly provided the greatest technological advancements in human history thus far. However - feudalism at one stage of the historical timeline was also the most advanced system, if the justification for a given social order is reduced to a matter of advancement relative to prior modes then human society would never advance.

johnl

Nothing can be done
We can no longer be saved
Even Marx agrees.

synd

Ireland is not a neo-liberal economy. In a neo-liberal economy the idea of NAMA or nationalisation wouldn't even arise...more than likely because in a neo-liberal economy banks that didnt manage their risk effectively would already be dead.

Actually your wrong, due to your misunderstanding of what neo-liberalism actually is. Neo-liberalism is not an economic doctrine - its merely the advocation of policies conductive to the process of upper-class accumulation. Neo-liberalism is a pejorative term used within left wing discourse to describe the bugarsie activity of applying neo-classical/Austrian economic theory in opposition to working class attempts to ascertain more social redistribution - while correspondingly pursuing state aid in favor of increased accumulation/monopolistic enterprise ect. It was best described by Piliger as (socialism for the rich - markets for the poor). Neo-liberalism is not an espoused economic model, rather an active form of contradiction that serves a specific class purpose. For instance a neo-liberal will decry taxation as theft and public expenditure as regressive, whilst simultaneously supporting grants made to business's ect. NAMA is a perfect example of neo-liberalism in practice.

AIB for example required a bailout in the 1980s. The moral hazard of the state as an economic actor merely put NAMA in the post for our current generation. Imagine if AIB had been left to go to the wall then? Would we be borrowing 60-90 billion to bail them out now?

I have no time for bank bailouts - I have already made my position clear.

And while you might say that "state" banks might be run better than private banks, more in tune with the needs of the population, on a more sustainable basis remember that the construction boom was state policy for the past 10 years. Bertie Ahern is totally honest on this point. Houses being built in the middle of no where, banks lending recklessly to developers, banks lending recklessly to home buyers...all of this was state policy.

Again, the construction boom was state policy only in so far as the state removed restrictions on the financial market. If you conceptualize the construction boom/debt induced growth as being caused by state interference in the market you are incorrect - the state merely allowed the market a free hand in specific instances. The de-regulation/liberalization of the financial sector just allowed the banks to act without restriction, ie the commodities future modernization act of 1999 passed by the US senate removed regulation inhibiting banks from making loans to individuals without sufficient collateral (expanded sup-prime lending). Theirs absolutely nothing ''regulatory'' about the state removing restrictions within the banking industry, its unanimous that the current crisis illustrates the inherent inability of the financial market to act rationally. The notion of self correcting markets in conjunction with various other liberal orthodoxies are gradually being swept from the pages of history.

As for social partnership - Iv never seen the point in forging an allegiance with a group who you should be trying to get rid off. Agreed - whatever else, the Dail has an electoral mandate. Begg is a director of a bank. Not quite the same mandate. The Dail ought to be crushing the unions, not inviting them to run the country.

The assertion that the unions are somehow responsible for the current sub-prime crisis in ridicules. However Begg should be gotten rid off seeing as his social dem worldview allows for the existence of a capitalist class. The guy opting for his job is far more suitable in my opinion - if he gets in, your mates in IBEC will be in real trouble

Nope, it was caused as a result of government incentivisation of massive production of housing. Read up on the various tax breaks, and the lack of planning or provision of services. Even listen to Bertie Ahern. He is surprisingly frank that as far as he was concerned the objective was to get more and more houses built. That was his economic policy.

No actually, your just engaging in linguistic distortion in order to project the situation in a manner befitting your failed liberal philosophy. First, a tax break is an entirely liberal policy - in fact, in your idealized free market tax would not exist whatsoever. Lack of planning provision - presumably you mean on the part of the state, needless to say you adhere to the spontaneous order of the marketplace, external agencies attempting to quantify whats needed are not required from a liberal perspective.

You are paradoxically underestimating the effect (good or bad) of govenment economic and fiscal policy on the economy whilst simultaneously calling for more...

No actually, Im calling for the replacement of the entire system - the abolition of the judiciary, the de-construction of parliamentary representation the socialization of capital and the implementation of regional delegation. - (Red flag over the GPO and all that)

You are just restating yourself here, and assuming that Irish labour...if it cant be employed in an unproductive and inefficient industry simply sits about on its hands and doesn't retrain or move into other productive and efficient industries. This is a common fault I see with Marxist thought - its frozen. Christ, Ive already switched careers three times and Im still in my twenties

My initial point stands intact, in the event that capital can ascertain a higher profit due to cheap labor and low taxation it will re-locate causing massive unemployment, poverty and hardship as the gov in conjunction with IBEC attempt to lower the living standard in order to attract investment. So far as recovery is concerned - the initiative to engage in investment/risk is negated due to the lack of both collateral and spending power caused by the national debt.

I've worked with Polish people and in Poland. I think theyre great, but I am very much aware I worked with a subset of the Polish workforce - not the average. Irish workers still retain key advantages in particular areas over them that can be marketed, and charged for at a premium.

Hot air

Business enviroments in Poland and Ireland are not the same. Wage costs are not the be all and end all. The low corporation tax (for example) is a massive aid.

Corporation tax in Ireland is low - however eastern Europe will merely follow suit. Hungary currently stands at 10%, Latvia is at 15% - lower in specialized regions. Lithuania stands at 15% - however this entails 100% tax exemption for the first 6 years - and 50% for an additional 10. For all your waffle (and it is waffle) abot Ireland being some kind of education hotspot - the re-location of Dells Limerick facilities to Poland speaks volumes. Dell being a high tech producer as opposed to a shoe manufacturer. As I have explained prior, if capital can accumulate more in profit so far as the reduction in expenditure is concerned than it can ascertain due to increased productivity per head - then it will re-locate. This is economic fact that you cannot negate via the espousal of cheap liberal rhetoric.

Youre locked into a one sided view. Irish wages go down, but Polish wages remain fixed? Why wouldnt increased demand in Poland for relatively fixed labour supply not lead to increasing wages in Poland? And lead to increasing demand in Poland for consumer goods? You talk about decreasing Irish spending due to decreasing wage income, but if the sprocket factory moves from Ireland to Poland to get cheaper production costs, the Irish population can now buy cheaper sprockets...and assuming theyre not sitting on their hands wishing for a new sprocket factory to open...be relatively richer.

Im locked into a realistic view. You think demand in Ireland will ensue any time soon given the level of personal and national debt ?. I hardly consider marginally cheaper sprockets an improvement on mass unemployment and the amount required to maintain social welfare. Furthermore - when wages in the peripheral nations are won in concession on the part of the native working class, capitalists will offset the subsequent expenditure by increasing prices in order to maintain profit margins. The general contradiction emerges - capital attempts to shift costs from one section of the working class to another. Consumers in the developed core place pressure on capital for higher quality goods and better service - this is translated into an increase in the rate of exploitation.

The problem also emerges that - investment/production for future markets exeedes the amount of actual profit available. This is driven by competition - overinvestment leading to overproduction and the ensuing collapse. Irrationality is an understatment when divorced from the crackpot terminology of neo-classical theory.

This is only the case if capitalists consider it to be very difficult to renegotiate wages in light of economic circumstances...for example, a highly unionised workforce. This is a concern in countries like Germany, where even in the good times companies do not hire many staff because they know it will be next to impossible to lay them off in the bad times.The problem is unions

The problem is that capitalists are unwilling to make concession. The buguarsie just speculate in order to see how low wages will go - comparable to the property market ie. (if you plan on buying while prices are in decline you will wait as long as possible.) Its not workers that set prices or wages.

Its populist to say "British Jobs for British Workers" to quote Gordon Brown, but even Brown knows the reality is that trade is good.

Protectionism isnt an end to trade - its just an increased degree of monopolization on the part of the regional powers. There are of course great risks assosiated with this.

Bread factories stand empty with unemployed bakers because the people who want bread can get it cheaper from better bakers who produce more bread, to a higher quality at lower cost.

No actually - your working from the assumption that the price mechanism is a viable indicator of social needs. Take houses for instance, people are unable to afford rent/housing - the price mechanism does not ensure the rational allocation of resources in this case. Hundreds of thousands wait on housing lists, a problem with homelessness prevails in the urban centers - yet vast estates remain unoccupied. Likewise - enterprise may not be generating enough in the way of profit, factories however needlessly shut down (or re-locate) despite continuing demand both in terms of commodity consumption and job desireability. In effect all a company requires in order to continue production is to generate enough value to cover maintinence costs and wage. In the case of profitable companies - massive amounts of surplus would be retained in the event of socialization.

Your plan would either create a failed business or force people to pay more for their bread than they ought to...misallocating resources in both cases.

No - socialism would entail production being quantified according to stated social needs, maintinence and wage would be the only expendature of relevence, so unoccupied factories that stand vaccent due to lack of profitability would be put to use.

Please...Marxism is an exercise in wishful thinking.

Coming from someone who thinks the fairies regulate the market - thats rich.

Salvelinus

Has there been a succesful markist country?

Ostrom

anonymous_joe wrote: »

Remind me, isn't Marxism the system where a lazy worker earns as much as a hard worker, thus causing the hard worker to become demoralised and become dragged down to the lazy worker's level?

That'll help us outperform those pesky capitalists.

No, those are the idiotic outpourings of his pious disciples

Salvelinus

anonymous_joe wrote: »

Remind me, isn't Marxism the system where a lazy worker earns as much as a hard worker, thus causing the hard worker to become demoralised and become dragged down to the lazy worker's level?

That'll help us outperform those pesky capitalists.

Think that was jesus in the vineyard.

Sand

@Synd

Actually your wrong, due to your misunderstanding of what neo-liberalism actually is. Neo-liberalism is not an economic doctrine - its merely the advocation of policies conductive to the process of upper-class accumulation. Neo-liberalism is a pejorative term used within left wing discourse

No actually, your just engaging in linguistic distortion...

The rest of your arguments arent much better to be honest. Ill just cover the highlights:

For instance a neo-liberal will decry taxation as theft and public expenditure as regressive, whilst simultaneously supporting grants made to business's ect.

I dont agree with the concept of "picking winners" or "national champions". But I guess despite associating neo-liberalism with me at every turn in you post, my own views will not impact your belief on what you think neo-liberals think.

The notion of self correcting markets in conjunction with various other liberal orthodoxies are gradually being swept from the pages of history.

Why? The banks took on huge risk. And they got wiped out. The only thing keeping them alive is massive state support on the dubious grounds that the cost of doing so is less than the cost of letting them die. If the market (left to its own devices) wipes out overly risky banks Id say it shows evidence of regulating itself. Because the only banks left alive will be the ones who manage their risk.

This is the main fallacy of your views. You believe the hype and disbelieve the state has any role or effect on the economy. Apparently all those budgets, tax breaks, wealth transfers...nope, no effect whatsoever.

The assertion that the unions are somehow responsible for the current sub-prime crisis in ridicules.

The "social partners" had a bigger say in the running of this country over the past 10 years than the Dail did effectively. Yes, the unions are "somehow responsible" for this crisis ( its not a sub prime crisis, thats the US but for the record lending to the very poor was a political objective and incentivised there too) and no they cant skip away from the trainwreak whistling innocently or worse yet complaining about the driving.

First, a tax break is an entirely liberal policy - in fact, in your idealized free market tax would not exist whatsoever.

Are you disagreeing that a tax break is an incentive to a particular course of action? Or just waffling?

Im locked into a realistic view. You think demand in Ireland will ensue any time soon given the level of personal and national debt ?. I hardly consider marginally cheaper sprockets an improvement on mass unemployment and the amount required to maintain social welfare. Furthermore - when wages in the peripheral nations are won in concession on the part of the native working class, capitalists will offset the subsequent expenditure by increasing prices in order to maintain profit margins. The general contradiction emerges - capital attempts to shift costs from one section of the working class to another. Consumers in the developed core place pressure on capital for higher quality goods and better service - this is translated into an increase in the rate of exploitation.

Did you ever happen to read George Orwell by the way? I like him. He wrote stuff like this which still applies to this day

In The Managerial Revolution Burnham prophesies a German victory, postponement of the Russo-German war until after Britain is defeated, and, subsequently, the defeat of Russia. The book, or much of it, was written in the second half of 1940 — i. e. at a time when the Germans had overrun western Europe and were bombing Britain, and the Russians were collaborating with them fairly closely, and in what appeared, at any rate, to be a spirit of appeasement.

In the supplementary note added to the English edition of the book, Burnham appears to assume that the USSR is already beaten and the splitting-up process is about to begin. This was published in the spring of 1942 and presumably written at the end of 1941; i. e. when the Germans were in the suburbs of Moscow.

The prediction that Russia would gang up with Japan against the USA was written early in 1944, soon after the conclusion of a new Russo-Japanese treaty.

The prophecy of Russian world conquest was written in the winter of 1944, when the Russians were advancing rapidly in eastern Europe while the Western Allies were still held up in Italy and northern France.
It will be seen that at each point Burnham is predicting a continuation of the thing that is happening. Now the tendency to do this is not simply a bad habit, like inaccuracy or exaggeration, which one can correct by taking thought. It is a major mental disease, and its roots lie partly in cowardice and partly in the worship of power, which is not fully separable from cowardice.

Along similar lines you are locked into a frozen view. Ireland is not competitive compared to some other locations. Hence Ireland will never be competitive. Not only that, businesses are currently transfering to these locations, so they will always move to those locations. Irish workers are unemployed, hence Irish workers will always be unemployed.

Theres no real examination of the underlying principles. And yes, there are differences between Polish and Irish workers - I dont want to get into them because I dont want to run the risk of a Polish vs Irish derail. But your assumption that Irish workers cannot compete with Polish workers is a fairly laughable.

Its not workers that set prices or wages.

The market does. The workers are a factor of that market.

No actually - your working from the assumption that the price mechanism is a viable indicator of social needs.

No Im working from the assumption that an empty bread factory and unemployed bakers means making bread has already been tried and failed and maybe its better to make something else and trade it for bread than throw good money after bad.

Jesus, trade and its advantages pretty much predates the wheel.

Christ, Marxists would have one set of guys digging holes and another set filling them in again just to keep everyone working.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

synd

I dont agree with the concept of "picking winners" or "national champions". But I guess despite associating neo-liberalism with me at every turn in you post, my own views will not impact your belief on what you think neo-liberals think.

Neo-liberalism is the practice of idealogical inconsistency it is an extension of of neo-classical/austrian economic theory, which in no way whatsoever reflects the reality of the market. While liberal theory generally denounces state interference - self purported liberals are keen on proposing that the state extend a helping hand to business. I have yet to come across a liberal for instance who does not point to the US as an example of ''free market'' success - quite ridicules given the US economy developed via massive state regulation. Liberals in my experience consistently point to the abundance created under a system they theoretically hate (state capitalism) - as justification for the viability of their theoretical (free market) model.

This is the main fallacy of your views. You believe the hype and disbelieve the state has any role or effect on the economy. Apparently all those budgets, tax breaks, wealth transfers...nope, no effect whatsoever.

Again - reduction in taxation is a liberal policy, its a means of reducing the degree of regulation on the market.

( its not a sub prime crisis, thats the US but for the record lending to the very poor was a political objective and incentivised there too) and no they cant skip away from the trainwreak whistling innocently or worse yet complaining about the driving.

Unions had no part to play in the liberalization of the financial market or the allocation of cheap credit. The compulsion to make speculative profits on future conditions came directly from developers in construction in conjunction with those in the banking industry.

Are you disagreeing that a tax break is an incentive to a particular course of action? Or just waffling?

Im not sure what your position is, are you trying to assert that tax breaks where not a good idea. During the Celtic Tiger liberals quite consistently advocated tax breaks in order to draw investment - have you done a u turn or where you one of those non-existent liberals who supported high taxtion ?

Did you ever happen to read George Orwell by the way? I like him. He wrote stuff like this which still applies to this day

Yes Orwell is great, you should read Homage to Catalonia

It was the first time that I had ever been in a town where the working class was in the saddle. Practically every building of any size had been seized by the workers and was draped with red flags ow with the red and black flag of the Anarchists; every wall was scrawled with the hammer and sickle and with the initials of the revolutionary parties;almost every church had been gutted and its images burnt. Churches here and there were being systematically demolished by gangs of workman. Every shop and cafe had an inscription saying that it had been collectivised; even the bootblacks had been collectivized and their boxes painted red and black. Waiters and shop-walkers looked you in the face and treated you as an equal. Servile and even ceremonial forms of speech had temporarily disappeared. Nobody said 'Sen~or' or 'Don' ort even 'Usted'; everyone called everyone else 'Comrade' or 'Thou', and said 'Salud!' instead of 'Buenos dias'. Tipping had been forbidden by law since the time of Primo de Rivera; almost my first experience was receiving a lecture from a hotel manager for trying to tip a lift-boy. There were no private motor-cars, they had all been commandeered, and the trams and taxis and much of the other transport were painted red and black. The revolutionary posters were everywhere, flaming from the walls in clean reds and blues that made the few remaining advertisements look like daubs of mud. Down the Ramblas, the wide central artery of the town where crowds of people streamed constantly to and fro, the loud-speakers were bellowing revolutionary songs all day and far into the night. And it was the aspect of the crowds that was the queerest thing of all. In outward appearance it was a town in which the wealthy classes had practically ceased to exist. Except for a small number of women and foreigners there were no 'well-dressed' people at all. Practically everyone wore rough working-class clothes, or blue overalls or some variant of militia uniform. All this was queer and moving. There was much in this that I did not understand, in some ways I did not not even like it, but I recognized it immediately as a state of affairs worth fighting for. Also, I believed that things were as they appeared, that this was really a workers' State and that the entire bourgeoisie had either fled, been killed or voluntarily come over to the workers' side; I did not realise that great numbers of well-to-do bourgeois were simply lying low and disguising themselves as proletarians for the time being. - George Orwell.

Along similar lines you are locked into a frozen view. Ireland is not competitive compared to some other locations. Hence Ireland will never be competitive. Not only that, businesses are currently transfering to these locations, so they will always move to those locations. Irish workers are unemployed, hence Irish workers will always be unemployed.

Again - my perspective encapsulates the dynamism of the capitalist market. I have absolutely no doubt that Ireland may regain ''competiveness'' my fundamental assertion was that this will entail a massive reduction in living standards in terms of capital re-location, declining wages and unemployment. Your position amounts to nothing but ignoring the immediate social consequences of capitalist accumulation while chanting the matra of ''somewhere over the rainbow'' - of course this is all that can be expected from a proponent of upper class rule.

Theres no real examination of the underlying principles. And yes, there are differences between Polish and Irish workers - I dont want to get into them because I dont want to run the risk of a Polish vs Irish derail. But your assumption that Irish workers cannot compete with Polish workers is a fairly laughable.

Its not ''fairly laughable'' - its an economic fact, if more can be accumulated in Poland in the way of profit - capital will relocate. I have already debunked the assertion that increased productivity per head ensures the retention of investment. Unless your going to formulate an actual argument in response I would suggest you keep your snide remarks to yourself - there a clear indication of intellectual bankruptcy.

The market does. The workers are a factor of that market.

Fallacy of composition - workers may pressurize capitalists to higher wages however it is invariably the capitalist alone who has the ability to set them. Capital in its pathological urge to accumulate more for investment when faced with a decline in the rate of return generally offsets the rise in wage by increasing prices.

No Im working from the assumption that an empty bread factory and unemployed bakers means making bread has already been tried and failed and maybe its better to make something else and trade it for bread than throw good money after bad.

Only that isn't what an empty bread factory indicates - a vacant facility may see absolutely no decrease in demand whatsoever, however in order to increase profits will re-locate. The demand for jobs exists alongside the demand for the given commodity remains however social need in the form of wage is negated due to the fact that the owner wishes to see an increase on the amount of surplus he can expropriate.

Christ, Marxists would have one set of guys digging holes and another set filling them in again just to keep everyone working.

No actually, vast amounts of badly needed social projects could be undertaken. Capitalism is a failed system, the means of production need to be taken under public ownership and organized democraticlly. The socialization of the productive facilities would entail a huge rise in wage in that profit is negated, jobs would be retained and much would be saved following the refusal to re-pay upper class debt. Financial speculation would abolished and production/credit allocation based on the quantification of social requirements. In addition we could realize full employment by enacting a right to work policy. Housing could be made social - vast estates used to house the homeless and those on waiting lists ect. Our natural resources could be re-appropriated and those responsible for their theft brought to justice. This is all entirely possible - however given property law serves to preserve upper class rule the liberal courts would need to be de-constructed and replaced with social courts. Oh, and liberals could be denounced as enemies of the people

synd

At this stage, what's the point of talking about public spending as a percentage of (hugely inflated) 2007 GDP? Start basing public expenditure on 2009 GDP, and you get a much better idea of what this country can realistically afford.

My comment was a refutation of the assertion that Ireland somehow priced itself out of the labor market in terms of wages (something typically cited by right wing propagandists). Our public expenditure as a percentile of our GDP remains very low by European standards. What we can realistically afford is largely predicated on how much upper class debt the gov decides to offload onto the taxpayer. Furthermore what we can afford is dependent on the retention of productive capacity - if the capitalist market has its way we will left impoverished as capital re-locates to peripheral regions creating immediate unemployment and placing downward pressure on wages.

True. And we know from experience that technology stagnates or regresses under a communist system. So until you can come up with something better than capitalism, you have to accept it as your best possible alternative.

If by communist you mean state socialist - then your incorrect the technological advancement progressed rapidly, however it was utilized in the arms sector as opposed to providing greater social facilities ect. With regards libertarian socialism, it has proven itself more efficient than capitalism in terms of productive output wherever implemented. Social advancement is merely the evolution of a system - socialism comes from the re-organization of capitalist facilities, its not an external system rather a continuation.

Sand

self purported liberals are keen on proposing that the state extend a helping hand to business.

No atheists in fox holes? I am quite sure many bankers would have purported to be liberal in the good times, and socialist in the bad time. NAMA is an expression of this - check the byline of every single article in favour of NAMA: Its always either a Fianna Failer, a banker or a developer. All would have claimed to have been "free market" in the good old days, and now are talking sternly about shouldering the burden for the good of the nation. These people dont have a political idealogy.

Liberals for the record do almost violently disagree with the current course of Obamas economic policy.

To steal your George Orwell quote:

Also, I believed that things were as they appeared, that this was really a workers' State and that the entire bourgeoisie had either fled, been killed or voluntarily come over to the workers' side; I did not realise that great numbers of well-to-do bourgeois were simply lying low and disguising themselves as proletarians for the time being

I have yet to come across a liberal for instance who does not point to the US as an example of ''free market'' success - quite ridicules given the US economy developed via massive state regulation.

Well firstly...As you might recognise after me saying it a kabajillion times, there is no "free market" in that there is a state ( even Somalia has a state in that there are warlords with a monopoly on violence, and some recognised legitimacy based on that) and the state enacts policy that impacts the market. Sometimes positively, sometimes negatively. The US is not a free market. If you want to examine the sub prime issue check out the role Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac played, definitively creating the arena for the securitisation of ****ty loans. Then examine the role the legislature played in passing laws to encourage home ownership amongst the very poor ( I.E. the sub prime market). Yeah, you can argue the banks should have been hard nosed, but when you show up with 12 kegs at an AA meeting, whose to blame? You or the alcoholics?

Unions had no part to play in the liberalization of the financial market or the allocation of cheap credit. The compulsion to make speculative profits on future conditions came directly from developers in construction in conjunction with those in the banking industry.

Yeah, they just happily took the free cash on offer ( whinging that they couldnt get more by the way). About as principled and public spirited as any banker or property developer I might add. And you still ignore that the state policy has any economic impact, despite crediting the entire US economic strength to state capitalism. Apparently, the stern, forthright and honest boys in the civil service and Fianna Fail took their eyes of the ball, trusted those evil bankers to run their own affairs for a second, and when they looked again the whole place was on fire...

Have you been abroad for the past 10 years or something? The property "boom" was state economic policy. Directed by our elected leadership, the social partners and the department of Finance.

I mean what is it - Is it state capitalism when it suits, reckless free market mofos when it doesnt?

Im not sure what your position is, are you trying to assert that tax breaks where not a good idea. During the Celtic Tiger liberals quite consistently advocated tax breaks in order to draw investment - have you done a u turn or where you one of those non-existent liberals who supported high taxtion ?

Im one of those crazy out of the park guys who thinks taxes need to be justified and the minimum required to achieve required service levels in the required areas. Working to live is one thing, living to work is another, living to pay taxes is socialism. So generally, I am in favour of low taxes. But you are missing the point of a tax incentive...

If you are taxed 60% on income in general, but taxed only 30% on income earned on property investment...all other things being equal, what will happen? Thats right...heavy investment in property. The Irish government gave massive tax incentives to investment in property and the construction sector over the past 10 years. This was to address the housing needs in the Dublin area but obviously got wildly out of control. Given you have such faith in the state to guide the economy, why are you so amazed that such incentives might have had more effect than this supposed "deregulation", which in effect was the state regulator colluding with banks to deceive shareholders ( wholly and completely alien to neo-liberalism idealogy).

Again - my perspective encapsulates the dynamism of the capitalist market. I have absolutely no doubt that Ireland may regain ''competiveness'' my fundamental assertion was that this will entail a massive reduction in living standards in terms of capital re-location, declining wages and unemployment. Your position amounts to nothing but ignoring the immediate social consequences of capitalist accumulation while chanting the matra of ''somewhere over the rainbow'' - of course this is all that can be expected from a proponent of upper class rule

Your fundamental assetion is wrong. But Im sure it makes sense if you consider Eastern European wages to be fixed, no real (in the economic sense) benefit to lower cost products and services and think Irish bakers need to get back into the bread factory as opposed to train for something where they can turn a profit.

In your own way, your view is as unrealistic and diverged from reality as the neo-liberals you criticise. When I was in Poland I noticed the shops were selling Playstation 3s and Call of Duty 4s and so on and all in the international price, and there was demand for this. Polish people were demanding this. And they increasingly ( though starting from a low base level) demand the wages to allow them to purchase these brands and past times.

Its not ''fairly laughable'' - its an economic fact, if more can be accumulated in Poland in the way of profit - capital will relocate. I have already debunked the assertion that increased productivity per head ensures the retention of investment. Unless your going to formulate an actual argument in response I would suggest you keep your snide remarks to yourself - there a clear indication of intellectual bankruptcy.

Yes, it is fairly laughable. Lets consider your theory of increased productivity per head being ignored by the canny investor. For this purpose, the Irish worker and Polish worker are turned into black boxes. And investor puts in 100 euro, and for every Irish worker he get gets 110 back. For every Polish worker he gets 105 back. So he goes to Poland so he can lose 5 dollars on every worker?

Please. The thing that needs to be accepted here is not that the world is conspiring against the Irish worker...its that the Irish worker needs to shape the **** up. The last thing we need is self pity dressed up as some sort of economic policy.

And Ill stick with the snide remarks....they make up at least 75% of my posts, and Im proud of that productivity.

Fallacy of composition - workers may pressurize capitalists to higher wages however it is invariably the capitalist alone who has the ability to set them.

Lets say Im the capitalist. I tell you, the oppressed worker, I will pay you 0.01 euro a day to clean toliets.

Do you:

A) Sigh and accept, "Damn those heartless capitalist bastards!"
Say "Wut!?!? Im off to Burger King!"

Apparently I'm setting the wages, so I guess I can choose for you. A it is.

Only that isn't what an empty bread factory indicates - a vacant facility may see absolutely no decrease in demand whatsoever, however in order to increase profits will re-locate. The demand for jobs exists alongside the demand for the given commodity remains however social need in the form of wage is negated due to the fact that the owner wishes to see an increase on the amount of surplus he can expropriate.

Of course theres no decrease in demand for bread. Just because Company X is terrible at making bread doesnt mean Company Y is too.

And again, there is this frozen, 1920s view Im talking about. Just because theres a demand for work, doesnt mean that everyone has to be employed as a baker. They can re-train and switch employment to something they can make a success of and trade for bread. Like I said, I have switch careers three times already. Theres more than one market for labour.

Whats your plan for all the empty auctioneers and unemployed architecht? Another property boom so they can all be employed as auctioneers and architechts?

You are just working from a locked in view of resentment...thats great for developing a chip on the shoulder, but not much use for developing a credible economic policy.

Capitalism is a failed system, the means of production need to be taken under public ownership and organized democraticlly.

Do you know whats charmingly identical between neo-liberalism and socialism? They all believe man is a rational actor, completely unable to act irrationally or in some self defeating fashion.

much would be saved following the refusal to re-pay upper class debt

What about lower class debt? Would that be repaid? ****s sake...

In addition we could realize full employment by enacting a right to work policy.

Yeah sure, If I make it your job to prepare reports on what happened on Judge Judy I guess youre employed sitting on your couch drinking Dutch Gold all day. Oh wait, we have social welfare already.

Housing could be made social - vast estates used to house the homeless and those on waiting lists ect.

Great, I baggsie Aras An Uachtaran. You can slum it with the plebs in some crappy shoebox holiday home in Letrim.

We have markets for a reason you know...

Our natural resources could be re-appropriated and those responsible for their theft brought to justice.

Maybe we could take Santa Claus in for questioning too in relation to a long running campaign of breaking and entering. Oh wait, he was just one of your proto-socialists, making himself at home in *our* home. He was just ahead of the curve.

This is all entirely possible - however given property law serves to preserve upper class rule the liberal courts would need to be de-constructed and replaced with social courts.

Pesky laws protecting individuals and human rights.

Oh, and liberals could be denounced as enemies of the people

It wouldnt be socialism without secret police, the enemy within and gulags.

synd

To steal your George Orwell quote:

Is there something wrong with the bugarsie being hunted ? - you could stick on a celtic jersy and try your luck as one of ''the plebs'' although Im sure your insipid hatred of participitory democracy would become apparent fairly quickly.

Well firstly...As you might recognise after me saying it a kabajillion times, there is no "free market" in that there is a state ( even Somalia has a state in that there are warlords with a monopoly on violence, and some recognised legitimacy based on that) and the state enacts policy that impacts the market.

Your quite right that there is no free market in the purest sence - however we can judge by degrees. In which case Somalia would be a reasonably close approximation of a libertarian society - and objections on specifics aside, most definitely more ''liberal'' than the oligopolistic markets of the developed world.

Sometimes positively, sometimes negatively. The US is not a free market. If you want to examine the sub prime issue check out the role Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac played, definitively creating the arena for the securitisation of ****ty loans. Then examine the role the legislature played in passing laws to encourage home ownership amongst the very poor ( I.E. the sub prime market). Yeah, you can argue the banks should have been hard nosed, but when you show up with 12 kegs at an AA meeting, whose to blame? You or the alcoholics?

Your preaching to the converted, the US is about as far from a free market as you can possibly drift. Which makes me wonder why liberals quite consistently point to the abundance of american society as proof that ''capitalism works''. I can only deduce that the poor creatures are under the impression that the US underwent some golden age of liberalized trade before falling into the sinful lagoon of statehood. The problem is of course, that the US - like virtually every other developed economy advanced under conditions of massive regulation/protectionism and were the direct benificiaries of colonial accumulation. In fact the most suitable examples of free trade and what can for all intensive purposes be described as ''liberal markets'' are invariably located in the third world.

Yeah, they just happily took the free cash on offer ( whinging that they couldnt get more by the way). About as principled and public spirited as any banker or property developer I might add.

Those people who where afforded such loans would not have been in a position to take them to begin with if it had not been for the de-regulation of the financial sector.

And you still ignore that the state policy has any economic impact, despite crediting the entire US economic strength to state capitalism. Apparently, the stern, forthright and honest boys in the civil service and Fianna Fail took their eyes of the ball, trusted those evil bankers to run their own affairs for a second, and when they looked again the whole place was on fire...

The bankers in conjunction with the gov decided deregulation was the way to go. To put it language you might be familiar with - state regulation was thought to undermine ''financial innovation''. Laissez-faire for banks - backed by Greenspan (libertarian) maybe not your flavor but a libertarian none the less.

I mean what is it - Is it state capitalism when it suits, reckless free market mofos when it doesnt?

Its all state capitalism, its merely more or less regulated by degrees - and generally massive liberalization entails catastrophe.

Im one of those crazy out of the park guys who thinks taxes need to be justified and the minimum required to achieve required service levels in the required areas.

I would really like to know how exactly you would define the ''minimum requirement.''

If you are taxed 60% on income in general, but taxed only 30% on income earned on property investment...all other things being equal, what will happen? Thats right...heavy investment in property. The Irish government gave massive tax incentives to investment in property and the construction sector over the past 10 yearsThis was to address the housing needs in the Dublin area but obviously got wildly out of control. Given you have such faith in the state to guide the economy, why are you so amazed that such incentives might have had more effect than this supposed "deregulation", which in effect was the state regulator colluding with banks to deceive shareholders ( wholly and completely alien to neo-liberalism idealogy).

Im aware of how this works I just fail to see how you understand it as being a flaw of the state as opposed to capitalism itself. What do you think caused the international compulsion to rely on debt induced growth to begin with ?. It was the decline in the rate of profit in manufactoring industry from the late 1960s. Essentially the amount channeled into investment driven by competition invariably surpasses the quantity of potential profit on the market. This is what Marx identifies as the central problem of capitalist accumulation. The upper class may offset this problem in different ways, they can place downward pressure on wages (union busting). This was carried out during the 70s under your mates thatcher and regan. The influx of foreign savings into the US (paticularly from china - largely enacted to keep Chinese wages down) allowed them to cut interest rates and pave the way for speculative growth. The compulsion to engage in speculation is a direct consequence of the markets inability to sustain an ever growing rate of profit in commodity production.

Your fundamental assetion is wrong. But Im sure it makes sense if you consider Eastern European wages to be fixed, no real (in the economic sense) benefit to lower cost products and services and think Irish bakers need to get back into the bread factory as opposed to train for something where they can turn a profit.

I never stated wages to be fixed, surely they will rise then be undercut by a competing market. What your ignoring is the immediate and devastating consequences of capital re-location.

When I was in Poland I noticed the shops were selling Playstation 3s and Call of Duty 4s and so on and all in the international price, and there was demand for this. Polish people were demanding this. And they increasingly ( though starting from a low base level) demand the wages to allow them to purchase these brands and past times.

Such products are sold in the capitals of many third world nations and there are markets for them, however the markets are tiny - usually comprising of about 10% of the population. Computer games where not available in Poland in 1989 when poverty stood at 5.7% however they along with various other luxury goods where available by 1992-93 when poverty stood at 40%.

Yes, it is fairly laughable. Lets consider your theory of increased productivity per head being ignored by the canny investor. For this purpose, the Irish worker and Polish worker are turned into black boxes. And investor puts in 100 euro, and for every Irish worker he get gets 110 back. For every Polish worker he gets 105 back. So he goes to Poland so he can lose 5 dollars on every worker?

Again this is nonsense, I have already explained that in the event that more can be accumulated in profit due to decreased labor costs than can be gained by the relative increase in productivity per head - then capital will go to where it can turn a higher profit. Dells relocation of its Limerick facilities to Poland speaks volumes. Worker A = 5% productivity Worker B = 8% / Worker A costs 5 ph Worker B costs 25 ph. Figure it out, then maybe you might understand why high tech industry has a tendency to move to Bangalore.

Please. The thing that needs to be accepted here is not that the world is conspiring against the Irish worker..

Capitalism is conspiring against all workers

The last thing we need is self pity dressed up as some sort of economic policy.

What we need is to start recognizing comments like the one above as liberal propaganda designed to indoctrinate the populace with the idea that we are unable to replace the capitalist order so we must submit to its discipline. - Less the market Gods be angered.

.its that the Irish worker needs to shape the **** up.

Translated from liberaleese = Irish workers need to shut the **** up, accept wage cuts, accept unemployment, accept the privatization of public assets and do as ''the better half'' of society tell them.

And Ill stick with the snide remarks....they make up at least 75% of my posts, and Im proud of that productivity.

Id say at least 85.4%

Lets say Im the capitalist. I tell you, the oppressed worker, I will pay you 0.01 euro a day to clean toliets.Do you:A) Sigh and accept, "Damn those heartless capitalist bastards!"B) Say "Wut!?!? Im off to Burger King!"

There are naturally limits on how low wages can be dropped due to the agreements won on the part of unions - however this does not stop IBEC from calling for reductions on the agreed standards.

And again, there is this frozen, 1920s view Im talking about. Just because theres a demand for work, doesnt mean that everyone has to be employed as a baker.

No - however it does mean that qualified bakers should not be unemployed while bakeries close down and local demand remains. The social requirement for employment and commodities trumps the capitalists pathalogical urge to appropriate more surplus from decreasing the amount of productive value he provides in wage.

They can re-train and switch employment to something they can make a success of and trade for bread. Like I said, I have switch careers three times already.

Yes in your game people are forced to adapt to the needs of capitalist profit appropriation - in case you have yet to notice, i advocate the destruction of ''your game'' and consequently the negation of its rules.

You are just working from a locked in view of resentment...thats great for developing a chip on the shoulder, but not much use for developing a credible economic policy.

The vast majority of people have a chip on their shoulder with the current system - and like any relationship, if its not working for those involved they ought to find another one. Of course the economic priesthood - like the religious priesthood espouse the notion that the marriage is sacred. I say **** the priests - then burn the church :eek:

Do you know whats charmingly identical between neo-liberalism and socialism? They all believe man is a rational actor, completely unable to act irrationally or in some self defeating fashion.

No actually, liberalism holds that individual market actors are rational - socialism understands what ****e this assertion is and seeks to plan the economy in areas of known irrationality.

Pesky laws protecting individuals and human rights.

Protecting property rights - if the capitalist class is going to overthrown and the workplace democratized, individual rights as they stand would conflict with more fundamental social rights. The judiciary, given their idealogical leanings would need to be removed from service - besides I never liked those stupid wigs.

It wouldnt be socialism without secret police, the enemy within and gulags.

If the police where really secret then you wouldn't know about them. Iv never been a fan of gulags - deportation is a more humane method of removing the reactionary scurge. Liberals = an antiquated idealogical cult that believes society ought to be stratified according to property relations and democracy subverted in favor of executive order.

Sand

Synd...

Your preaching to the converted, the US is about as far from a free market as you can possibly drift. Which makes me wonder why liberals quite consistently point to the abundance of american society as proof that ''capitalism works''

.

Your quite right that there is no free market in the purest sence - however we can judge by degrees.

The rest of your post is equally as confused. Saying X is X when it supports one assertion, then saying X is actually Y when it suits another. So youll forgive me if I skip the majority of "points". Some of them dont even relate to anything I posted.

What I will note is that as I said, the last thing Ireland needs is self pity, bitterness and resentment dressed up as a policy option. And if you scratch a socialist, thats what you tend to find as we have in your last post.

No actually, liberalism holds that individual market actors are rational - socialism understands what ****e this assertion is and seeks to plan the economy in areas of known irrationality.

Yes, it deals with the irrationality by instituting workeplace democracy composed of these irrational market actors, so they can all elect mini-Bertie Aherns and vote for twice the pay, twice the time off and half the hours.

There are naturally limits on how low wages can be dropped due to the agreements won on the part of unions - however this does not stop IBEC from calling for reductions on the agreed standards.

Yes and that natural limit is determined by the market for labour, of which the workers are a component. So stop wasting time with the self pity about the poor workers having wages set for them by the evil capitalist overlords.

Im aware of how this works I just fail to see how you understand it as being a flaw of the state as opposed to capitalism itself.

No you really dont seem to be aware of how this works.