The final redoubt

A healthy dose of optimism. Thanks Rhiannon.

The rant is just that. Just a rant. The counter-argument is basically "Don't hate the US or Americans because they are on top just now. They're just the latest in a long procession of imperial powers and they won't be the last. The same darkness that topples sovereign governments etc for the benefit of US financial interests is doing it also in Britain, France, Belgium, Russia, Spain, etc. They had their empires, their moment of glory and others will too. Good and bad everywhere.

The beggar is an annex. People with those beliefs disturb me. What about all the kids and all the people yet to be born. I don't buy the idea that what they'll get instead will be better. All we need is a bunch of crazies with enough nukes to bring their happy Armageddon plan to fruition. Phew. I'm going to look at downloading García Márquez and his years of solitude. If it's not too expensive. Take care, Rhiannon. Hope you have a nice walk lined up.

Yes. Those feet. Someone on here pointed me in that direction. Ewan, I think. What a great place this is. I don't think much has changed since those ancient times. Innocent blood flowed then and it flows now so the great can be great, so the aspirant can realise their dreams, so the reptilian belly-sliders can steal another few dollars or euros or pounds or Swiss Francs or whatever. Or they simply steal our time. I used to believe things would improve once. Good caveat, airyfairy.

Hi Di_Hard. Yes. It used to be said that capitalism flourishes best in a democratic setting, but there are many versions of democracy. The style of banking and commerce that we recognise as capitalism occurred amid the religious and political freedoms that characterised mainly protestant Europe around the 17th century (I might be a bit out with the dates). Universal suffrage is quite recent, historically, but landowners and merchants were represented. Then you have the modern anomaly of China, which is ostensibly communist. Less puzzling are all the right wing dictatorships that ran capitalist economies that were more or less successful. Capitalists are probably not so concerned about universal suffrage in democracies anyway, as they achieve more through lobbying and patronage. I think there's a sense that democracies are more stable and commerce likes stability. More likelihood of getting your money back.

I think the problem with communism as was is more to do with the ineffectiveness of planned economies and the difficulties finding money to invest and modernise with new machinery. The reunification of East and West Germany is a good example. The west has been pouring money into the east. Most enterprises in the east just failed.

With the compromise thing, you often hear that referred to as riding the tiger's back, where capitalism is the tiger and society / welfare rides it. The knack is not to kill the tiger off if you want to spend on welfare and infrastructure. The payback is that businesses get to use the infrastructure (which many forget) and get healthy employees.

I think I just failed the exam. I got your question the wrong way around.

I think it works out roughly the same. I think if any group or any peoples somehow agreed to have a democratic system, they could without a capitalist (private commerce through the raising of share capital) economy. Communes, for instance, unless they were run by dictators. The economy can be separated from the system of government. A cooperative system for instance. It is probably more democratic if anything.

Being of my generation, I quite liked the idea of some redistribution of wealth into welfare in its widest sense. I'm not sure nationalising private industries was a success, but you have to remember that many had been nationalised for the war effort and were completely worn out and never really recovered. There's an argument that the collapse of nationalised industries in the 70s had just been delayed from the 40s. Taxes had to be high to keep all that going. Health and welfare ought to be seen separately really. Higher tax to pay for health and welfare services and for infrastructure is probably a good thing but, like everything, it's about balance and maybe things ought to be run as efficiently as you can. Full employment is probably linked to redistribution of wealth. I think that's a good thing for social cohesion. But like I said, you have to be careful not to kill the tiger.

India and Africa are very different. One a country with a single federal government and the other a continent with wildly differing countries, many unstable. India also had a huge well educated middle class which supports commerce, technology companies etc. It has infrastructure. The main capitalist interest in Africa is exploitation of minerals, which can be done by creating elites that can be controlled by bribery etc to give access to mining rights, oil etc. There's agriculture, I suppose. Our nice merchant adventurers tend to rape Africa and put employees in hazardous situations. What's the Belt and Road thing?

An interesting point with India is how its industrialists now own things from Tetleys tea to Port Talbot steel works (is that still TATA? or Mittal?) and Jaguar Landrover. More, too, I think.

Politically and socially, I think we've got a lot of catching up to do with the globalisation of commerce, which many say was started by Thatcher's financial deregulation. Merchants / financiers have the whip hand over the governments of nationalised states. They can just move their money around the world like the capital flight situation in Argentina. Back to riding the tiger again. What's needed is the globalisation of government and politics to give us any chance. Sadly, we're being steered away from that right now (so who's behind that then?). Competition between states is where we're going, which is a global version of competition between individual workers for jobs. Keeps the wage bill down. God knows what the communist party in China is up to. They have generated huge monetary reserves. They have lent incredible amounts to the US government. A whole other conversation.

Last question: it depends. Where it's needed. The Conservatives nationalised Rolls-Royce aero engines in around 1971 to save it from going bust.

Small government isn't a naturally occurring condition, it's happening because certain people are controlling media and the institutions and promoting their beliefs. Those people are enjoying a huge surge in their personal wealth as a result. The gap between rich and poor has grown dramatically. They have a vision and a plan to deliver it.

Ah. The Belt and Road initiative. I remember seeing this now. This is the problem with the Facebook information avalanche. I can't remember half of it days later.

A bit like Britain controlling the sea ways. Empire-building, probably, through trade. China has so much cash, it doesn't know what to do with it. The "Road" bit is probably why they're building runways on those islands in the South China Sea.

Newspaper ownership

http://www.magforum.com/papers/nationals.htm

My pleasure.

Humans!!