Russell Brand.........

[Hastings gull]

One person will never come up with the answer. Particularly some random bloke on a football message board. But it's something that we need to discuss - economists, political theorists, sociologists and everyone else - particularly regular people.

It's clear that the system isn't working for any of us. The few thousand people at the top getting unimaginably richer every year, while the rest of us always seem to lose out - whether it is our wages, our savings, our public services or our quality of life. It is obvious, blatantly obvious, that the system isn't working for us - so it's important that we start having serious discussion about what the alternatives are.

I have my ideas - like Russell Brand has his - but no single person has all of the answers. We can only encourage people to debate, remind people that it doesn't have to be this way and things could and should be so much better for all of us. Collectively we have the solutions, but first we need to make sure that we are all aware of the problems.

You are quite right in that no one person will have the answers, and debate involving the weighing up of many ideas will doubtless help. But then, just when I think common sense is breaking out, you write your second paragraph. I note you use the words "us" and "our" presumably to make it look better, as everyone agrees with you. A couple of thousand are stinking rich and 59,998.000 people in the UK are suffering under the system. And what's more, it is blatantly obvious.
I am not sure where you live, perhaps it is in space or even in that ivory tower, but any attempt at even a modicum of realism would make one realise that this is total nonsense. Whilst there is undoubted inequality, as you rightly say, and sadly, poverty, the huge majority of UK residents have enjoyed relative prosperity never before witnessed in human history. If that were not the case, then you would not be regaling the service sector! Of course the capitalist system could be improved -what system could not be? - but please don't tell me that the system has totally failed millions of people, as this quite evidently is not the case.

 

[Hastings gull]

But you are just highlighting financial value. Estate agency doesn't offer much else to society IMHO. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with Mustafa, merely adding clarity to his post.

I'll also take this opportunity to apologise to you for referring to some jobs as "crappy jobs". I was trying to describe a certain small very dull unimaginative section of middle-class society, I stand by my dislike of this section of people (people not their jobs), but appreciate I made a pigs-ear of it. I appreciate I came across as a nob.

Vielen Dank aber es war wirklich nicht noetig. Du bist kein nob!

 

[beorhthelm]

Where does any money come from? What is money?

Money is an incredible thing, it certainly feels like it exists when you are holding it, using it, or even looking at your online statement - but it is all an illusion, it doesn't really exist. The only thing that truly exists is human labour and earth's resources.

Money once represented something real, but then capitalism made it represent something not real - debt - for the sake of economic growth. But now it seems to exist purely as shackles which keep the poor poor, and the golden whip which keeps the rich rich. The entire monetary system needs to be revolutionised so that it truly represents what it is meant to - human labour (which is more or less infinite) and the earths resources (which is finite) - this should be the focal point of any "currency", rather than debt which is incredibly inefficient at both utilising the workforce and saving the earth's resources.

oh dear. you want to pay people some basic income, yet dont accept what money is - a medium of exchange - and rather go down the "money is debt" rabbit hole. the conclusion of this line of thought is that you want to indebt everyone by giving them something that doesnt exist. the irony is that money is created by human labour, creativity and endevour already, but you dont want to recognise this for some reason. you even suggested you want people to do what they want to earn what they can, which is the same as current, but you dont like some of peoples choices and amount of earnings.

 

[cunning fergus]

The lack of regulation existed pre Brown, and there hasn't been a huge amount of tightening of the rules from the current regime either. Even if it had existed, it would have made relatively little difference to what happened in 2008, which was a global crisis in the finance industry. The UK, due to having a significant part of the economy devoted to that industry (and I work in it too for part of the year), was therefore exposed to what was happening elsewhere in the world.

My personal view is that the bankers are the smartest kids on the block, and can run rings round the poorly paid regulators, who don't have the speed of thought, resources or support to do much to stop them. Remember that the global trade in derivatives is about $7 trillion DAILY, ( $7,000,000,000,000,000) and transactions are taking place and in ways which are off the scale in terms of complexity.

I used to teach creative accounting courses for all the investment banks from 2002-2008, (so the recession is MY fault of course) and the questions I would be regularly asked were incredible, these kids have amazingly sharp minds, but integrity and ethics was never the angle they were coming from.

After 2008 I told the banks I couldn't teach such a course any more, as it would be a public relations disaster for them given the public hostility towards their profession at the time. They duly listened, nodded, agreed, and then asked me to teach their staff exactly the same materials and techniques...............but call the course 'Advanced accounting'. The owners of Sellafield would be having trebles all round at such ingenuity.

You are wrong.

The FSA was introduced by Brown and Labour under the Financial Services and Markets Act and it was the first time that the UK financial services industry was not regulated by itself. It consolidated all regulatory power with the FSA which was directly reportable to the Treasury.

To ignore this change and all the consequences of implementing the approved person regime, financial services compensation scheme, the financial ombudsman service etc. shows you have little understanding of the detail in how Labour sought to regulate the UK financial services industry.

A lot of what was introduced was good, and necessary in light of Barings collapse, Barlow Clowes and misspelling scandals.

However, it was also flawed.

One significant flaw was to sideline the Bank of England, which meant that conduct risk was more important than prudential risk, this meant, for example, that Northern Rock's rise to be the 5th biggest UK bank based essentially on their amity to access money from the vagaries of the international intra bank money markets was missed by the regulators.........for years. It meant that Bradford and Bingleys mortgage book which was 60% self certified, was also missed.

Furthermore, and as reported in the minutes of Parliamentary investigation Committees, the FCA was subject to "political influence" and sought to regulate via a light touch regulatory system (those 2 points are connected by the way) and that is why the like of Balls has apologised for his part in the failure of the banks. Remember Fred Goodwin was knighted by Labour for ****s sake.............KNIGHTED.

The UK did this without any global crisis, and it meant that when the crisis broke we were exposed more than other countries.

I am not absolving the Banks, they were ultimately responsible, however they were not negligent in a vacuum. To avoid repeating mistakes we should not have those responsible near the levers of power again. You want to ignore this point because of your own political prejudice, just like Brand. If he is anti establishment and ignores the role of the politicians, he is a fraud.

Thanks for the resume, but to be sure you really didn't have anything to do with crisis................

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

You are wrong.

The FSA was introduced by Brown and Labour under the Financial Services and Markets Act and it was the first time that the UK financial services industry was not regulated by itself. It consolidated all regulatory power with the FSA which was directly reportable to the Treasury.

To ignore this change and all the consequences of implementing the approved person regime, financial services compensation scheme, the financial ombudsman service etc. shows you have little understanding of the detail in how Labour sought to regulate the UK financial services industry.

A lot of what was introduced was good, and necessary in light of Barings collapse, Barlow Clowes and misspelling scandals.

However, it was also flawed.

One significant flaw was to sideline the Bank of England, which meant that conduct risk was more important than prudential risk, this meant, for example, that Northern Rock's rise to be the 5th biggest UK bank based essentially on their amity to access money from the vagaries of the international intra bank money markets was missed by the regulators.........for years. It meant that Bradford and Bingleys mortgage book which was 60% self certified, was also missed.

Furthermore, and as reported in the minutes of Parliamentary investigation Committees, the FCA was subject to "political influence" and sought to regulate via a light touch regulatory system (those 2 points are connected by the way) and that is why the like of Balls has apologised for his part in the failure of the banks. Remember Fred Goodwin was knighted by Labour for ****s sake.............KNIGHTED.

The UK did this without any global crisis, and it meant that when the crisis broke we were exposed more than other countries.

I am not absolving the Banks, they were ultimately responsible, however they were not negligent in a vacuum. To avoid repeating mistakes we should not have those responsible near the levers of power again. You want to ignore this point because of your own political prejudice, just like Brand. If he is anti establishment and ignores the role of the politicians, he is a fraud.

Thanks for the resume, but to be sure you really didn't have anything to do with crisis................

Hey, you've forgotten to add at least 15 links.

 

[cunning fergus]

Hey, you've forgotten to add at least 15 links.

Hey, your right, as it's Christmas, here's one just for you.........

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs...ts-against-immigration-are-growing-in-germany

 

[brighton fella]

Apologies about this one. A few beers inspired me to encourage people to see the bigger picture, but in retrospect that was a little bit "far out".

Remember every person, every country, is slave to debt because of this capitalist monetary system that we have inherited. It only benefits a few and that is how we have found ourselves in this mess, which is bizarre considering money isn't actually real. Consider the sacrifices we are making to "reduce the deficit" - yet observe how the richest people alive are profiteering unimaginably from it. It's a rigged game.

to some extent I'd agree but how would you go about removing the system ?
the corrupt elite who head the system are so powerful that they are able buy and control the minds and thoughts of people including politicians prime minister's presidents the media and so forth, they even have NASA wrapped up, the pharmaceutical industry, in fact you tell me what they don't have under their control.

 

[BadFish]

Thanks for the apology, by the way. we all have a few too many at times. But you still have not answered the question, and yet again indulge in more ramblings about money. If you wish to replace what you consider to be a rotten system, then you must have a workable alternative up your sleeve, and it is quite clear that you do not, other than vague catch-phrases.

Why is this truism always bandied about? How is it you consider that you 'must' offer and alternative if you want to replace something broken. It is a process that must be worked through, in the same way as anything is replaced or improved. The first part of the process is to realise that something doesn't work or can be improved. Then you would try to work out what is wrong with it before working out the best way to fix or improve it.

I believe that we are all at different stages of this process. Most of us are in the early stages of this process and either don't think there is a problem or are still trying to understand what the problems are with our system . We are some distance from coming up with a solution to the problem and frankly anyone who offers a complete package alternative is going to be viewed with suspicious (and rightly so in my opinion). There is much discussion to be had before we find a viable solution.

I am going to go out on a limb here and suggest that neither Mustafa nor Russel Brand are offering ready made solutions, they are merely engaging in the discussion which can improve things for normal people (much like the loose collection of ideas that the occupy movement is often criticised for). We have the power to communicate and collaborate that could only be dreamed of in the past. This means that the opportunities for discussion and decision making have been broken open and the scope for working together across the planet to improve our lives is limitless.

In short we don't need or want someone to come forward with a grand plan to replace what we have, we can work it out as we go by sharing ideas and discussion theories to change what needs to be changed and keeping what works.

It would have been nice for him to answer my question but perhaps he hasn't got to that part of the idea yet.

 

[BadFish]

That may well be true, but the increase may just be down to interest on savings? I am not saying that this is fair, just that the figure alone may not tell the whole story. But you still have avoided the point - the majority of folk will have become wealthy, or perhaps just "comfortably off" due to their own diligence. You always refer to bankers and oligarchs etc etc and I am sure that no one denies that they have too much perhaps ill-gotten wealth, but this is only a tiny minority, though a convenient one for you.

This is an interesting point, and presumably there is a portion of the 1% who have worked hard for their money and deserve their place in it.

What percentage of the 1% would you consider to be worthy of their riches?
Do they deserve quite so much of what they have while so much of the world lives on so little?
If we redress the balance of those who have too much 'ill gotten wealth' would the percentage of the deserving rich suffer that much?

 

[BadFish]

I totally disagree, for many reasons. We'll always need doctors, and you don't learn the skills required to be a doctor by working the same as everyone else, you have to work harder, and people won't do that unless they're going to be paid more. And we still need to beat diseases, and to develop technology to one day replace fossil fuels, etc etc. We need the technological advances that come from a free market (where people are working for a profit), like the small batteries mobile phones help push.

So I don't think we've reached a point where we don't need people to work hard or take risks, but even if we had, humans would rather fight with their neighbours to get more than to live with their fair share. Even when we have food aid for Africa, we can't deliver it to all the people, because there are those that would kill to control it.

Who says it's broken, you? I think it's better than anything we've ever had before.

He actually said that not 'everybody' has to work rather than than nobody has to work.

The system may be better than anything we have had before but that doesn't mean that it cannot be improved. Technology is better than it has ever been before but we don't rest on our laurels in that field (otherwise we will never get robot doctors) so why should we in the political, financial and sociological fields?

 

[BadFish]

There is no revelation though. It's just that Brand is the wrong person to look up to. If he has only just woken up to this at his age, everything that he is now saying is too little too late.

He is no revolutionary like Mandela, Gandhi, King, even Lennon or Che Guevara, who he plagiarised for his promotion poster. All this Brand ar5e tickling as if he is some sort of modern hero is daft. He brings nothing new to the table and it is all second hand Brand.

Give me someone like Geldof any day

Why is it too little too late? These are issues that are effecting us more and more. These are issues that people still don't believe are that much of a problem.

Personally I don't see him as a hero but he is someone with a huge profile who is saying things that I believe need to be said and is generating decent discussion (for those that can move on from his persona). You are correct that people have been saying these things for a long time and he is new to the party but he has the fame a profile to spread the message further. This is of course a double edged sword as so many will dismiss him because he is a bit of a tit but he is still getting the message out there .

Lets face it Mustafa, myself and a few others have been banging on about this stuff for a few years on NSC and we have never managed a 16 page thread.

"Second hand Brand" i like it

 

[beorhthelm]

Why is this truism always bandied about? How is it you consider that you 'must' offer and alternative if you want to replace something broken. It is a process that must be worked through, in the same way as anything is replaced or improved. The first part of the process is to realise that something doesn't work or can be improved. Then you would try to work out what is wrong with it before working out the best way to fix or improve it.

because its very well being the millioneth person ovr thousands of years to say you dont think things are all as one would like, if you're going to write and ponitificate on the matter then you really ought to have a solution fleshed out. otherwise you're just another bloke down the pub putting the world to rights. you've sort of said this yourself anyway, with the process of realisation of a problem, seeking solutions, evaluate and implement solutions. if someone cant get to solutions and evaluation, they arent saying anything new. if they are doing step one and not even getting to solutions, they haven't acheived anything more than the typical 6th former, or indeed blokes down the pub.

 

[BadFish]

to some extent I'd agree but how would you go about removing the system ?
the corrupt elite who head the system are so powerful that they are able buy and control the minds and thoughts of people including politicians prime minister's presidents the media and so forth, they even have NASA wrapped up, the pharmaceutical industry, in fact you tell me what they don't have under their control.

You share ideas and communicate with others and use the tools that you have available. We are an important part of the system and we make choices about which parts of the system we choose to support. Without us there is no system but we have the means to make our own choices and spread our own messages.

Not wishing to derail or divert what is an interesting thread I think what happened in Sydney is an excellent example of people ignoring the system's message and using social media to offer our own collective message. What may be seen as a simple hashtag was to me a major step forward in our society.

Have you given Brand's book a crack? I am not very far through it but i would suggest that it may provide a few ideas to answer your question (you will have to wade through a fair bit of unnecessary and flowery prose to get to the message though).

 

[BadFish]

because its very well being the millioneth person ovr thousands of years to say you dont think things are all as one would like, if you're going to write and ponitificate on the matter then you really ought to have a solution fleshed out. otherwise you're just another bloke down the pub putting the world to rights. you've sort of said this yourself anyway, with the process of realisation of a problem, seeking solutions, evaluate and implement solutions. if someone cant get to solutions and evaluation, they arent saying anything new. if they are doing step one and not even getting to solutions, they haven't acheived anything more than the typical 6th former, or indeed blokes down the pub.

I disagree with this, it is not Brand's responsibility to come up with the solution, I would assume that this is not within his skill set. For any project or process there are many roles to be filled and many skills to be utilised. Brand's skills set and his role in this project is to raise awareness and get people talking and thinking about the issues and to improve media coverage to worthy causes like the housing estate in London. In this role he has already succeeded.

 

[beorhthelm]

I disagree with this, it is not Brand's responsibility to come up with the solution, I would assume that this is not within his skill set. For any project or process there are many roles to be filled and many skills to be utilised. Brand's skills set and his role in this project is to raise awareness and get people talking and thinking about the issues and to improve media coverage to worthy causes like the housing estate in London. In this role he has already succeeded.

who said anything about responsibility? its about credibility, if he wants some on the matter, he needs to propose something otherwise its just a tired old complaint echoed since the greeks. Brand's skills are drawing attention to himself. he has succeed in this. since we are talking more about him than what might be done practically, then he has utterly failed in the underlying cause. with no solutions, nothing moves forward.

 

[BadFish]

who said anything about responsibility? its about credibility, if he wants some on the matter, he needs to propose something otherwise its just a tired old complaint echoed since the greeks. Brand's skills are drawing attention to himself. he has succeed in this. since we are talking more about him than what might be done practically, then he has utterly failed in the underlying cause. with no solutions, nothing moves forward.

Credibility is in the eye of the beholder.

Those who choose to focus on him and ignore his message are always going to find an excuse to look the other way and that is their choice. If you believe that he hasn't raised the profile of the issues of corruption and inequality then so be it but personally I think that he is playing his role effectively. The solutions you require are being discussed and the framework for those solutions is being put in place. I soundly reject the notion that our problems will be fixed by on person riding in on a white steed with a new manifesto. As Brighton Fella pointed out this is a massive, complicated and difficult problem that will only be solved in small increments and small decisions made by the global population. FWIW I reject the idea of a revolution in the traditional sense (from what i have read of his book this isn't his idea either).

 

[symyjym]

Why is it too little too late? These are issues that are effecting us more and more. These are issues that people still don't believe are that much of a problem.

Personally I don't see him as a hero but he is someone with a huge profile who is saying things that I believe need to be said and is generating decent discussion (for those that can move on from his persona). You are correct that people have been saying these things for a long time and he is new to the party but he has the fame a profile to spread the message further. This is of course a double edged sword as so many will dismiss him because he is a bit of a tit but he is still getting the message out there .

Lets face it Mustafa, myself and a few others have been banging on about this stuff for a few years on NSC and we have never managed a 16 page thread.

"Second hand Brand" i like it

He lost all credibility with Andrew Sachs incident. The internet is the revolution, that's how ideas and philosophies flow, not Russell Brand regurgitating second hand information like a demented parrot.

If you ask anyone from any country and who is not part of the establishment; Is the world corrupt? They would say yes it is.

 

[brighton fella]

You share ideas and communicate with others and use the tools that you have available. We are an important part of the system and we make choices about which parts of the system we choose to support. Without us there is no system but we have the means to make our own choices and spread our own messages.

Not wishing to derail or divert what is an interesting thread I think what happened in Sydney is an excellent example of people ignoring the system's message and using social media to offer our own collective message. What may be seen as a simple hashtag was to me a major step forward in our society.

Have you given Brand's book a crack? I am not very far through it but i would suggest that it may provide a few ideas to answer your question (you will have to wade through a fair bit of unnecessary and flowery prose to get to the message though).

if by that you are suggesting do away with governments and let the people decide their own destiny then ideally this all sounds a very nice and pleasant idea but practically it wouldn't work for the reason if a particular nation did suddenly decided to topple and overthrow it's own government there could be no clear guarantee's that other nations would follow suit thus leaving that particular nation isolated vulnerable and at risk of attack from others.
all of these idea's sound very good but in reality I doubt very much they'd work at all unless of course if all nations decided to go the very same way at the very same time and all together.
most people nowadays are fully aware of NWO and it's corrupt going-on's as it stares you direct in the face "those who aren't can only be walking around in a trance" yet when anyone dares suggest NWO is happening and actually exists they are subjected to a barrage of abuse and labelled as a complete idiot or an absolute raving loon which conveniently plays right into the very hands of the ruling elite themselves which only adds support to their conniving little plan.
as for brands book I wouldn't have the patience to siv all the way through it just for a single answer that im looking for. ta all the same.

 

[BadFish]

He lost all credibility with Andrew Sachs incident. The internet is the revolution, that's how ideas and philosophies flow, not Russell Brand regurgitating second hand information like a demented parrot.

If you ask anyone from any country and who is not part of the establishment; Is the world corrupt? They would say yes it is.

Like I said credibility is in the eye of the beholder. For me his message is not diminished by mistakes he has previously made and apologised for.

The internet is merely tool (as is Russel) that can be used by the 'revolution', it still needs many other people to perform many other roles. To me, within such a movement everyone should be welcome to do as much or a little as they can and to offer whatever they can to assist. Russel Brand is only one part of creating the change that we would like to see. I see little point of dismissing or discrediting someone who is saying things that ring true and who has something to offer such a cause.

If we all stopped regurgitating second hand information then lets face it nothing would be said. We are all just demented parrots.

 

[BadFish]

if by that you are suggesting do away with governments and let the people decide their own destiny then ideally this all sounds a very nice and pleasant idea but practically it wouldn't work for the reason if a particular nation did suddenly decided to topple and overthrow it's own government there could be no clear guarantee's that other nations would follow suit thus leaving that particular nation isolated vulnerable and at risk of attack from others.
all of these idea's sound very good but in reality I doubt very much they'd work at all unless of course if all nations decided to go the very same way at the very same time and all together.
most people nowadays are fully aware of NWO and it's corrupt going-on's as it stares you direct in the face "those who aren't can only be walking around in a trance" yet when anyone dares suggest NWO is happening and actually exists they are subjected to a barrage of abuse and labelled as a complete idiot or an absolute raving loon which conveniently plays right into the very hands of the ruling elite themselves which only adds support to their conniving little plan.
as for brands book I wouldn't have the patience to siv all the way through it just for a single answer that im looking for. ta all the same.

No I am not suggesting any alternative because as you say they are not workable. I do think that there is a workable system out there but I am yet to hear about it. IMHO democracy is an excellent system it is just that the *******ised shell of democracy that we currently endure serves no-one but the 1%. We have a system in place that has worked and should work okay it has just been manipulated by those in power for their own ends.

My thinking is that with our system the people are still the key to powerful retaining their power, they have just become highly skilled at distracting us and keeping us both too busy and too apathetic to fight back. Perhaps Brand will increase the ground swell of opinion and unite those of us that see it and give a shit to make a difference.

Sadly I suspect that we will continue to highlight each other's failings and concentrate on the things that divide us rather than coming together to work out a solution to our common problem. We don't like Russel because he is too rich, too egocentric and too annoying, We don't like Bono because he is a cock, We don't like Geldof because he is scruffy, We don't like the occupy movement because they are too unwashed and too dreadlocky, we don't like Anonymous because they are too maverik, we don't like UKIP because they are too racist, you don't like me because i am too much of a lefty, I don't like you because you are too far right, no one likes this paragraph because it is too sanctamonious and preachy. Yet all of us, apparently know what the real problem is. Are we too divided and too focussed on each other faults to do anything about it?