Jeremy Corbyn on Andrew Marr programme

[topbanana36]

Corbyn is a fool! He can not re-nationalise the railways under EU directives, unless of course he wants to leave. The bloke is vile and should be given a one way ticket to syria since he loves it so much.

 

[Leyton Gull]

Capitalism is a greedy unhinged teenager and socialism is a slightly over protective parent. Liberals will side with either when it suits. Socialism had to bail out prodigal Capitalism when the latter got in some bother a few years ago.

 

[Deleted member 22389]

Corbyn is a fool! He can not re-nationalise the railways under EU directives, unless of course he wants to leave. The bloke is vile and should be given a one way ticket to syria since he loves it so much.

Listened to him once, can't stand the bloke either. Corbyn did want to leave the EU at one point, but he has since changed his views.

 

[pb21]

The problem that advocates of 'laissez-faire' capitalism have is that they live in 'cloud cuckoo land' as it doesn't work in reality; as is evident by the fact that states had to bail private banks out in 2008, which results from actions made back in the 1980s to make the market more free!

In addition to this, or a de-facto consequence, of a laissez-faire market is that it is skewed in the favour of and 'rewards' those more inclined to selfishness, and those prepared to shaft over others to get an 'upper hand'; as evident by the fact that levels of psychopathy amongst business CEOs is significantly higher than a random selection.

It also is a system that encourages short-termism and one where value is only applied to something being traded, i.e. the environmental impacts of Laissez-faire capitalism aren't considered sufficiently and it requires the state to step in to ensure the environment is considered sufficiently.

Some form of external 'control' is required otherwise it doesn't work!

 

[Leyton Gull]

Listened to him once, can't stand the bloke either. Corbyn did want to leave the EU at one point, but he has since changed his views.

and that's your reason for not being able to stand the guy? He did not sleep with your girlfriend or vandalise your car then?

 

[Deleted member 22389]

and that's your reason for not being able to stand the guy? He did not sleep with your girlfriend or vandalise your car then?

Yes, we keep being told he is a man of principle but obviously the EU is not one of them.

 

[Blue3]

Mr Corbyn is what Britan and more importantly what England has needed, for far to many years all the main political parties have been at times hard to distinguish between trying to all inhabit the same middle ground which is one of the reasons fringe parties have been doing so well.
Labour and Mr Corbyn may not win the next election but at least under his leadership they might start to correct the political compass

 

[*Gullsworth*]

Mr Corbyn is what Britan and more importantly what England has needed, for far to many years all the main political parties have been at times hard to distinguish between trying to all inhabit the same middle ground which is one of the reasons fringe parties have been doing so well.
Labour and Mr Corbyn may not win the next election but at least under his leadership they might start to correct the political compass

Exactly this, a choice now can be to the far left instead of slightly left of centre. The right are worried the have nots have a choice to vote for a politician that represents the have nots rather than the have a little. (Or the have a lots)

 

[Dandyman]

Agreed with much of what he said, especially on the Monarchy and the Lords, but and this is the problem, he believes in the tyranny of socialism. He thinks it is his job or some other state officials job to decide the allocation of resources instead of you and me.

Unless you are in control of British industry or a major landowner you don't decide the allocation of resources.

 

[Dandyman]

Resources are allocated by the market place, in a free and healthy economy. I agree with you, in our economy politicians want a big chunk, not just of money from business, but peoples personal wages too. Notice how we also don't have a free or healthy economy.

What you have to understand is that the market operates organically, you can't manage an economy, just like you can't build a tree. The market is essentially a source of information, when you mess with it and try to bend it to your will, you mess up the information.

For example, leading up to the financial crisis, "not enough people have houses" was the cry. Maybe it was genuine desire to see more homeowners, maybe it was just politics, but the basic story was that we were not happy with the economy, so we tried to change it by acting upon it. We made it easier for people to borrow money, easier than the market would have at the time allowed. When the market didn't allow people to borrow so much it was because they could not afford it, that was good information on which decisions should have been based, instead we didn't like the information, so we tried to change it. To the politicians and the socialists, the market was being selfish, not letting ordinary people on the housing ladder, and instead of seeing the market as it is, dispassionate, a source of information, they saw it as something which needed "fixing". So they fixed it. What happened? Homebuyers increasing, (creates bad information about available capital) prices increasing (creates bad information about property values), (mal)investment increasing (creates bad information about the wellbeing of financial institutions)...The economic crisis which now threatens our welfare system, our health system, our entire economy, was brought on by the very same kinds of actions people are now suggesting will fix it. If we wanted more homeownership we should have tried to foster a more healthy economy.

It was the ideas of people like Jeremy Corbyn, which got us into the mess we are in. The idea that the government must interviene in the market to provide fairness and equality is a noble idea, but it's deeply misguided. It doesn't work, it's a lie.

Another lie is the promise of "free" anything. Nothing is free. The NHS is apparently free, funny that because we are all worrying about how much it costs! There is no free healthcare, education or anything else, someone is paying and despite what you think, it's probably you. Again, the idea of "free healthcare" is pretty noble. But when you say it's "free" and all costs are covered, guess what - money is mismanaged and wasted, and money which is spent where it should be doesn't go as far as it should, because when stuff is "free" (i.e. paid for by the state no matter what and without any competition), prices go up.

I totally feel the same as everyone who wants there to be less poverty, less corruption etc. But if you just act emotively without understanding how economics works then even for all your good intentions you are just going to make a mess. All those people that you hoped to get a little more for, the very people you wanted to help and protect, the most vulnerable in society, they will be the ones most hurt when the NHS goes bankrupt or worse the economy collapses.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design." - Friedrich August von Hayek

The financial crisis was created by the greed, incompetence and lack of proper regulation of finance- capital. Hayek was a cheerleader for fascism in Chile and apartheid in South Africa.

 

[beorhthelm]

The problem that advocates of 'laissez-faire' capitalism have is that they live in 'cloud cuckoo land' as it doesn't work in reality; as is evident by the fact that states had to bail private banks out in 2008, which results from actions made back in the 1980s to make the market more free!

the problem with this staw man is that very few advocates of Laissez-faire capitialism actually believe its possible or even desirable, they are using it as a base line for a preferable system. the straw man then misguides you to false assumptions of what you think laissez-faire or classical economists believe. i.e. there is nothing in classical economics that "favours the selfish", this is simply recognised as a natural consequence of life we should work with. neither does it advocate corporations as an objective of economics. in fact quite the opposite, many classical economist cant abide the regulations, protections that companies find themselfs enjoying as it distorts markets, creating barriers to entry. it is accepted however some are necessary tools to allow markets to function - they implicitly concede some control is required. say advocating carbon credits to create a market to give a price mechanism for that environmental concern (this is the idea, which then gets politicised and ruined in the process).

the bailout has been widely opposed by classical ecnomists, who'd accept that those banks that are unsound should fail. however, the consequences of this would be the complete shutdown of the banking system, and subsequently the rest of commerce and industry - see Greece for a brief taste of the outcome. so in order have an orderly transition past the financial threat, one has to "save" the banks while they resturcture and adjust their internal operations so that they can fail gracefully. as for the point about the actions in the 1980s, it was the US 90's policy to interfere with the market, encouraging and subsidising home ownership that lead to the problem of sub-prime mortgages. under normal classical economics no one in their right mind would lend to those in low paid, unsecured work, at least not at affordable rates. (and yes you can make a good case for more homes being needed for those people to own their own home at an affordable price, but again thats only because government artificially restricts the amount, type and location of development).

 

[essbee]

At least there's now a clear-cut choice of policies for the electorate to vote FOR, rather than voting for varying shades of Tory Lite or Tory Far Rite or None Of The Above. Lib Dems are deluding themselves if they think they're on any kind of comeback trail, any self-respecting party member with any sense of idealism will be voting Labour or Greens or SNP next time around. Lib Dems may as well disband now or be doomed to suffer that single figure share of the vote forever.

My only reservation about Corbyn is that he looks a bit clapped out and seems to lack the will and/or energy to put his ideas across with the passion that those ideas deserve.

I tend to agree - and while I am not ageist (I don't think) - can or will a person of nearly 70 really have the energy or dynamism to lead the country? Hmm. I think not.

 

[vegster]

I like the cut of Tim Fallon's cloth. His speech was superb. Corbyn is like a throwback to Karl Marx and we don't need that in 21st century Britain. I am veering towards the lib dems in 2020 espcially as Baker got his just deserts

Thanks for the head's up Uncle, ok guys, go LARGE on a Labour landslide !

 

[vegster]

I tend to agree - and while I am not ageist (I don't think) - can or will a person of nearly 70 really have the energy or dynamism to lead the country? Hmm. I think not.

For reference, Winston Churchill was 65 in 1939.

 

[pb21]

the problem with this staw man is that veryfew advocates of Laissez-faire capitialism actually believe its possible or even desirable, they are using it as a base line for a preferable system.

Its not a 'straw man' to say that private banks required state funding as a result of the market becoming increasingly free-er, which is what advocates of Laissez-faire capitalism desired and therefore criticise those advocates; the two do go hand in hand.

Yes they may be various other aspects and many shades of grey involved but as you insinuate, some form of control is warranted and even desirable.

 

[essbee]

For reference, Winston Churchill was 65 in 1939.

True enough - but in modern day Britain it's a different ball game.

 

[Working class pride]

Unless you are in control of British industry or a major landowner you don't decide the allocation of resources.

No my friend, every time you go to a shop you control the allocation of resources and that is the whole wonder of freedom and the market and what sets us free from the tyranny of state run economies.

 

[Gwylan]

True enough - but in modern day Britain it's a different ball game.

OK, let's get more modern: Jim Callaghan was 64 when he became PM

 

[vegster]

True enough - but in modern day Britain it's a different ball game.

We are however, missing some 2.5 million heavily armed Germans bent on world domination.

 

[Hampster Gull]

No my friend, every time you go to a shop you control the allocation of resources and that is the whole wonder of freedom and the market and what sets us free from the tyranny of state run economies.

Indeed. It is a wonder