Jeremy Corbyn's favorite Socialist paradise....

[aggi]

I doubt Jeremy Corbyn's labour party would be welcome in any of those countries.

That jogged my memory about this https://www.opendemocracy.net/can-europ ... l-democrat" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and a lot of very similar articles.

I'll admit that I don't know enough about Scandinavian politics to know how accurate all of these articles are (although the people i've talked to whilst working in Scandinavia do seem a little bemused about Corbyn being hard-left, possibly from their experience of being so near the Iron Curtain).

[Imploding Turtle]

Hi IT, nice countries to live in. We could add Netherlands to the list. But, none of these countries pursue socialism. Generally, left of centre socialist policies, but also very strongly free market economies and "capitslism" to the extent that the state does not own or control the "means of production."

I doubt Jeremy Corbyn's labour party would be welcome in any of those countries.

Yes, they're social democracies. They have solid restraints on their capitalism, strong social programs and with out being too restrictive on their economies. And their citizens are happier for it.

[AndrewJB]

Hi IT, nice countries to live in. We could add Netherlands to the list. But, none of these countries pursue socialism. Generally, left of centre socialist policies, but also very strongly free market economies and "capitslism" to the extent that the state does not own or control the "means of production."

I doubt Jeremy Corbyn's labour party would be welcome in any of those countries.

I don't think there is a country around that is purely socialist or capitalist. All western countries have mixed economies, and the ones you alluded to have more heavily regulated capitalism than we do. When it comes to parts of their economies (public transport, energy, education, health service etc) the state certainly is the owner of the means of production. I'm glad you like it though, because that's what's coming here under the next Labour government (which when you compare manifestos is still to the right of Conservative governments from 1945 to the early eighties).

[android]

Test the theory out for yourselves. Of the Times, Telegraph, Sun, Express, and Daily Mail, how many times can you remember them calling for more tax on the rich? Did any of them support the minimum wage before it was introduced? Or paternity leave? Better yet, what examples can you provide to show any of these papers calling for anything that would even slightly prejudice the financial wellbeing of rich people?

Andrew - the newspapers you mention have generally been supportive of the Tory tax hikes for the rich since 2010.

I concede that it is true that there have been numerous articles calling for stamp duty reform (reductions) since the Tories massively increased rates for the wealthiest home owners.

On income tax, the newspapers you mention seem to me to be generally supportive of the higher top rate under the Tories of 45% compared to 40% under Labour (1997-2010). Again, some articles have argued in favour of reducing the top rate back to 40% but in the context of which rate would raise the most money. Those newspapers would probably all agree that a top rate of 50% would very likely raise less tax revenue than a top rate of 45% but between 40 and 45 is more debatable.

I think those newspapers have been almost universally supportive of the huge increases in the personal allowance resulting in much lower income taxes for lower earners since 2010.

[Rowls]

Yes, they're social democracies. They have solid restraints on their capitalism...

They actually score very highly for economic freedom.

The causal link between these freedoms and prosperity is undoubted.

[Rowls]

Yes, they're social democracies. They have solid restraints on their capitalism, strong social programs and with out being too restrictive on their economies. And their citizens are happier for it.

South Africa has strong restraints on capitalism.
Venezuela has strong restraints on capitalism.
North Korea has strong restraints on capitalism.

And their citizens are all the poorer for it.

[Imploding Turtle]

South Africa has strong restraints on capitalism.
Venezuela has strong restraints on capitalism.
North Korea has strong restraints on capitalism.

And their citizens are all the poorer for it.

America has possibly the weakest restraints on it's capitalism yet has among the highest levels of inequality. And probably among the highest levels of corporate influence in their democracy.

Here's a thought that you've never had before, what if there's such a thing as too strong and too weak?

People should matter more than money. That's all I want from this country's government.

[dsr]

People should matter more than money. That's all I want from this country's government.

Which is the old USA/USSR joke. America valued money, the Soviet Union valued people. So the Americans locked up their money and the Soviets locked up their people.

[Imploding Turtle]

That's a genuinely funny joke but unfortunately the US has very much caught up in the "locking up their people" aspect.

Edit:But the good news is that slavery is still allowed in the US as long as they criminalise someone first. Then they get to put these criminals to work in private prisons for private profit. So it's done is a very much non-commie way at least.

[Clarets4me]

https://uk.video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/s ... tion=click

7% of the population have fled the Country since 2013, this video sourced from that well known right-wing extremist organisation, the BBC !!

[AndrewJB]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKn_mrNqAKU" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Corbyn's speech in full.

[Paul Waine]

Plenty of other countries have an ambiguous tax on technology companies, France for instance. I seem to remembe you have some background in finance so I'm sure you're aware of the various "games" that these companies play to avoid tax. There's a reason that Amazon are based in Luxembourg and Apple in Ireland for instance (even if they did have far more staff in the UK).

Hi aggi, I don't know much about French taxes - though pretty sure they fall into "high tax" category. Yes, I'm aware that the "permanent establishment" rules, which is the international agreed (OECD?) way of allocating earnings between countries create opportunities for corporations to "arbitrage" (or "game, if you like) the tax rules to pay the lowest taxes possible for their situation. Luxembourg and Ireland are good examples where corporation taxes are lower, and so corporates are based there (PE) to pay lower CT. Netherlands also has convenient tax laws for certain situations - and there may be others that I'm not up to date with.

I think the international corproation tax rules are some years past their "best before date." Given that we can all buy on the internet, location of the supplier has become even more "flexible." Of course, they will locate, in accordance with the laws, that give them the lowest cost.

Hence, my argument - posted before on here - let's abolish tax on corporations' profits, because they can move and hide the profits where their tax obligations are lowest according to the laws. Of course, we should tax the owners of the corporations - maybe the UK should also follow the US's example and tax it's citizens wherever they are living (with relief, of course, for income and capital gains taxes paid locally). Abolishing CT is not a "let's lower taxes" idea, rather "let's get out of the corporate structing "games" that legally avoid CT" and "let's put taxation efforts where they can collect the taxes we require."

There is a strong argument for taxing employers for the people they employ - so long as it doesn't drive the employers away and they choose instead to employ people in other countries. If the country educates people well, if the "infrastructure" that facilitates employment - everything from legal system, law enforcement, roads and transportation, health system, housing - then the corporations that employ people should contribute to the country's taxes according to the value their employers bring to their business.

There are other benefits of this proposal: it eliminates the bias towards debt funding (interest costs offset against tax bill) v equity (no tax offset for dividends). This was a major contributor towards the 2008 "world financial crisis."

I'm not sure JC would put this on his "socialist paradise" list.

[Paul Waine]

That jogged my memory about this https://www.opendemocracy.net/can-europ ... l-democrat" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and a lot of very similar articles.

I'll admit that I don't know enough about Scandinavian politics to know how accurate all of these articles are (although the people i've talked to whilst working in Scandinavia do seem a little bemused about Corbyn being hard-left, possibly from their experience of being so near the Iron Curtain).

Interesting article, but I fear it misunderstands what Jeremy Corbyn really stands for - as demonstrated by his politics since 1980s. Plus ignores John McDonnell as "number 2." And, isn't JC public school educated? So, I'm not sure where the UK's "class divide" comes in. (I don't like class divides, btw. I'm a north east Lancs cobbled streets guy, myself).

I guess that the relative size of the Nordic populations also makes a "collective" sense of belonging easier to maintain.

[Paul Waine]

Yes, they're social democracies. They have solid restraints on their capitalism, strong social programs and with out being too restrictive on their economies. And their citizens are happier for it.

Hi IT, quite right, too. But, JC and John McDonnell are not proposing a "social democracy" agenda, are they. Wealth people are still allowed to be wealthy in Nordic countries. "For the many, not the few" is not a policy that would sit well in those democracies, in my opinion.

I guess we could check this by identifying how many Nordic politicians expressed support for Chavez' Venezuela.

[Paul Waine]

I don't think there is a country around that is purely socialist or capitalist. All western countries have mixed economies, and the ones you alluded to have more heavily regulated capitalism than we do. When it comes to parts of their economies (public transport, energy, education, health service etc) the state certainly is the owner of the means of production. I'm glad you like it though, because that's what's coming here under the next Labour government (which when you compare manifestos is still to the right of Conservative governments from 1945 to the early eighties).

Hi Andrew, are we talking of just the Nordic countries or also including Germany? How is capitalism "more heavily regulated" in those countries? I'm sure that there are greater "employment" protections - but, generally that just means that there are fewer people in jobs. The flexibility to grow employment when required and shrink it when demand slows is important for everyone's wealth and wellbeing. Blocking these smooth changes makes the inevitable "bust" that much more painful for the workers when it finally happens.

I guess we can look at "state ownership" in the sectors you've mentioned. Energy: I think it depends where you draw the lines on the energy sectors. A lot is in private ownership, some utilities are in state ownership. Health services: I'm not sure it is in state ownership like it is in the UK. Germany and Netherlands have (compulsory) health insurance systems - but the doctors and hospitals aren't owned by the state. We can research further details. Education: it may all be in state ownership. It may all be better quality than the comprehensive system in the UK. Again, it would be good to research.

Interesting suggestion that JC's labout party is to the right of Conservatives from 1945 to early 1980s. Is that what is meant when we hear that JC plans to take the UK back to the 1970s? We are in 21st century now. I think we need politicians for this century: JC and John McDonnell aren't, I'm afraid.

[Paul Waine]

That's a genuinely funny joke but unfortunately the US has very much caught up in the "locking up their people" aspect.

Edit:But the good news is that slavery is still allowed in the US as long as they criminalise someone first. Then they get to put these criminals to work in private prisons for private profit. So it's done is a very much non-commie way at least.

Hi IT, fully agree that the US locks up too many people and for too long - and worse, condemns people to the death penalty. In my opinion, much of the US still lives with a "frontier" approach to life. Death penalties, prison system, gun laws, and all the race relations stuff is a sign that, in these areas, there's been little progress from the 19th century.

However, none of these social issues are a reflection that the US also "highly regards" the "profit motive."

[AndrewJB]

Hi Andrew, are we talking of just the Nordic countries or also including Germany? How is capitalism "more heavily regulated" in those countries? I'm sure that there are greater "employment" protections - but, generally that just means that there are fewer people in jobs. The flexibility to grow employment when required and shrink it when demand slows is important for everyone's wealth and wellbeing. Blocking these smooth changes makes the inevitable "bust" that much more painful for the workers when it finally happens.

I guess we can look at "state ownership" in the sectors you've mentioned. Energy: I think it depends where you draw the lines on the energy sectors. A lot is in private ownership, some utilities are in state ownership. Health services: I'm not sure it is in state ownership like it is in the UK. Germany and Netherlands have (compulsory) health insurance systems - but the doctors and hospitals aren't owned by the state. We can research further details. Education: it may all be in state ownership. It may all be better quality than the comprehensive system in the UK. Again, it would be good to research.

Interesting suggestion that JC's labout party is to the right of Conservatives from 1945 to early 1980s. Is that what is meant when we hear that JC plans to take the UK back to the 1970s? We are in 21st century now. I think we need politicians for this century: JC and John McDonnell aren't, I'm afraid.

When you hear that Corbyn wants to take us back to the seventies all you’re doing is repeating what hostile newspapers say about him. The link I posted in which you can hear him in his own words contains a lot of forward thinking. And when you take into account the direction of the current government is toward the 19th Cent. then Corbyn is positively modern.

Job market flexibility isn’t so good for working people, and the economy didn’t do so badly when people had jobs for life. Perhaps businesses would benefit from flexible supply chains, and flexible rents? If they demand stability in those areas, they should offer it themselves.

[Paul Waine]

Job market flexibility isn’t so good for working people, and the economy didn’t do so badly when people had jobs for life. Perhaps businesses would benefit from flexible supply chains, and flexible rents? If they demand stability in those areas, they should offer it themselves.

Hi Andrew, "jobs for life" disappeared a long, long time ago - I'm on my 11th employer (not counting my own independent consulting activities) in a little over 40 years career. It's a lot better for the individual to be ready to move from one employer to another, including changing roles and sectors. And, if it's better for the individual it will also always be better for the economy. There's nothing static about supply chains, there's always a new supplier offering something that suggests it is better than the existing supplier, there would be little economic growth if this was'nt the case. In a more dramatic way we are seeing "flexibility in rents." All the technology companies offering services over the internet are challenging/replacing the bricks and mortar businesses committed to long term property leases. I'm not aware of any business that "demand stability" in these areas. They would not get it if they did demand it.

None of us would want to watch the Clarets holding on to the same squad of players - as the squad aged and the competition progressed. It's the same in all businesses; continue to progress, maybe making marginal gains, maybe sometimes more dramatic progress while the less successful get relegated.

PS: 30 mins of JC speech is too long for me. I'll take a look at a transcript if one is available - and look at some of the commentaries in the media.

[AndrewJB]

[quote="Paul Waine"]Hi Andrew, "jobs for life" disappeared a long, long time ago - I'm on my 11th employer (not counting my own independent consulting activities) in a little over 40 years career. It's a lot better for the individual to be ready to move from one employer to another, including changing roles and sectors. And, if it's better for the individual it will also always be better for the economy. There's nothing static about supply chains, there's always a new supplier offering something that suggests it is better than the existing supplier, there would be little economic growth if this was'nt the case. In a more dramatic way we are seeing "flexibility in rents." All the technology companies offering services over the internet are challenging/replacing the bricks and mortar businesses committed to long term property leases. I'm not aware of any business that "demand stability" in these areas. They would not get it if they did demand it.

None of us would want to watch the Clarets holding on to the same squad of players - as the squad aged and the competition progressed. It's the same in all businesses; continue to progress, maybe making marginal gains, maybe sometimes more dramatic progress while the less successful get relegated.

PS: 30 mins of JC speech is too long for me. I'll take a look at a transcript if one is available - and look at some of the commentaries in the media.[/https://labour.org.uk/press/full-text-j ... t-lecture/

[dsr]

When you hear that Corbyn wants to take us back to the seventies all you’re doing is repeating what hostile newspapers say about him. The link I posted in which you can hear him in his own words contains a lot of forward thinking. And when you take into account the direction of the current government is toward the 19th Cent. then Corbyn is positively modern.

Job market flexibility isn’t so good for working people, and the economy didn’t do so badly when people had jobs for life. Perhaps businesses would benefit from flexible supply chains, and flexible rents? If they demand stability in those areas, they should offer it themselves.

Jobs for life, Andrew? If you think there were "jobs for life" in the seventies, you're mistaken. How many cotton workers were there in this area at the end of 1979 compared with ten years earlier or twenty years earlier?

[Paul Waine]

[/https://labour.org.uk/press/full-text-j ... t-lecture/

Thanks for the link, Andrew.

OK, what do I think?

A very political speech, full of all the usual "socialist check boxes"

"billionaires, powerful, bosses etc, etc" - and the politicians who don't share JC's views....(don't forget to mention the homeless, etc - and praise the unions, etc).

praise for the "investigative journalists," though, I assume not when they are investigating and reporting on JC (and his friends)…. And, if we like investigative journalism that is researching gov't/state actions - why not just open up the state's information so we can see a lot more of what's going on for ourselves? (what is JC's view on the reports on areas where the NHS has failed/is failing, for example)?

Interesting angle on the trust in the media in the UK compared with the rest of Europe. Where does that come from? What is the basis for this claim? Are we just a little more questioning in the UK? Is journalism in all these other European countries more trustworthy? Or, do they just stay away from reporting critically on topics that challenge their governments? (I don't know the answer - but it would have been interesting if JC had sought to provide explanations of these views).

Set the BBC free from gov't and free from the biases of the social elites that populate the BBC - even though many of these solcial elites are also JC's Labour party social elites...

Something for nothing - cheaper license fees "for the poor" by taxing (in all honesty) an undefined "rich."

"Leveson Two" to follow "Leveson One" - I'd not seen this political jargon before - I hope we never see a "Leveson Two" - surely it was all about the wealthy stopping the press reporting on their indiscretions. This is not and was not a "for the many, not the few."

BBC - elections, regionalisation elections.... why not just cut the BBC down to be a BBC News organisation only, stop it competing with the rest of the media industry in entertainment/sport broadcasting etc. Aren't we all watching paid for services from Sky, Netflix and others any way?

Print media - but there's some much of the news that is not print media these days, so why argue against the ownership of print media, especilly if it is losing money - and can only be kept going by the "billionaire" owners losing money?

British Digital Corporation (BDC) alongside the BBC? When was the state ever any good with digital technology? Seriously, this sounds like the start of "1984" - and the BDC competing with google in search services - where do we think that might be heading? and competing with FaceBook - so will we all be required to have our own BDC walls? And, then all the linking to the other UK gov't services?

I'm pretty sure that Hugo Chavez could have made a speech like the above - I guess they share(d) the same "play book."

Sorry, JC's speech will not create a paradise.

[If it be your will]

.

[AndrewJB]

Thanks for the link, Andrew.

OK, what do I think?

A very political speech, full of all the usual "socialist check boxes"

"billionaires, powerful, bosses etc, etc" - and the politicians who don't share JC's views....(don't forget to mention the homeless, etc - and praise the unions, etc).

praise for the "investigative journalists," though, I assume not when they are investigating and reporting on JC (and his friends)…. And, if we like investigative journalism that is researching gov't/state actions - why not just open up the state's information so we can see a lot more of what's going on for ourselves? (what is JC's view on the reports on areas where the NHS has failed/is failing, for example)?

Interesting angle on the trust in the media in the UK compared with the rest of Europe. Where does that come from? What is the basis for this claim? Are we just a little more questioning in the UK? Is journalism in all these other European countries more trustworthy? Or, do they just stay away from reporting critically on topics that challenge their governments? (I don't know the answer - but it would have been interesting if JC had sought to provide explanations of these views).

Set the BBC free from gov't and free from the biases of the social elites that populate the BBC - even though many of these solcial elites are also JC's Labour party social elites...

Something for nothing - cheaper license fees "for the poor" by taxing (in all honesty) an undefined "rich."

"Leveson Two" to follow "Leveson One" - I'd not seen this political jargon before - I hope we never see a "Leveson Two" - surely it was all about the wealthy stopping the press reporting on their indiscretions. This is not and was not a "for the many, not the few."

BBC - elections, regionalisation elections.... why not just cut the BBC down to be a BBC News organisation only, stop it competing with the rest of the media industry in entertainment/sport broadcasting etc. Aren't we all watching paid for services from Sky, Netflix and others any way?

Print media - but there's some much of the news that is not print media these days, so why argue against the ownership of print media, especilly if it is losing money - and can only be kept going by the "billionaire" owners losing money?

British Digital Corporation (BDC) alongside the BBC? When was the state ever any good with digital technology? Seriously, this sounds like the start of "1984" - and the BDC competing with google in search services - where do we think that might be heading? and competing with FaceBook - so will we all be required to have our own BDC walls? And, then all the linking to the other UK gov't services?

I'm pretty sure that Hugo Chavez could have made a speech like the above - I guess they share(d) the same "play book."

Sorry, JC's speech will not create a paradise.

Presumably if you strengthen the role of investigative journalists, you can’t then exempt yourself. I think he’d agree with you about freedom of information, and making the country more transparent. As for democratising political appointments, that can only be better than the current system where jobs can be handed out like gifts by the PM.

I think Leveson 2 should go ahead, as it was to be about police collusion with the press, and Cameron solemnly swore to the victims it would be carried out. It would have (or will) lay bare evidence of dark deeds, so no there is the sense they’re being let off the hook.

I disagree about scaling the BBC back to news only, because it would reduce television business models down to commercial only, and unless the government is going to fund a not for profit commissioner of television programs, then the current BBC model works fine. You only have to look at the relatively low quality of US tv to see this. Having a digital platform is good sense (though I’d just keep it as the BBC). The government (and the BBC) have plenty of experience delivering content and service via the Internet. To me the next logical step will be to deliver compute and storage via a government cloud service, that would effectively make everyone a digital stakeholder. The potential for research would be huge. You were pondering over the issue of media trust, and it is telling that you would be worried about a state run (though at arms length) entity gathering your data, but seem to have no problem with companies doing it. For me as long as the state holder of data is secure, and researchers only get information that can’t identify people, this is vastly more preferable to google or Tesco or MasterCard.

You think Chavez would have made a similar speech? When he became leader Venezuela had been so beset with economic problems for decades, that the pressing issues for him were the simple things of education, healthcare, and feeding people.

[Paul Waine]

ha, ha.
You really, really hate the guy, don't you?

It's actually a reasonably good indicator: the more deranged Paul Waine's posts become, the closer we are to a Corbyn government.

Hi, iibyw, no I don't hate anyone, that's not my style. I do dislike JC's politics- just as a large number of the Labour Party dislike JC's politics. I don't think it would be good for the many in Britain - and the few, of course, if they feel their interests are threatened will just move elsewhere....

However, I understand that you are required to follow the Momentum "play book."

[Paul Waine]

To me the next logical step will be to deliver compute and storage via a government cloud service, that would effectively make everyone a digital stakeholder. The potential for research would be huge. You were pondering over the issue of media trust, and it is telling that you would be worried about a state run (though at arms length) entity gathering your data, but seem to have no problem with companies doing it. For me as long as the state holder of data is secure, and researchers only get information that can’t identify people, this is vastly more preferable to google or Tesco or MasterCard.

You think Chavez would have made a similar speech? When he became leader Venezuela had been so beset with economic problems for decades, that the pressing issues for him were the simple things of education, healthcare, and feeding people.

Hi Andrew, just want to respond to two points:

1) I don't agree with FaceBook and other social media collecting data on individuals. I think the governments should be regulating to cut back and control the data they collect. And, I've posted on here before that the governments should charge a license fee (call it a social media tax) on all social media corporations based on the number of users registered in country, so that FaceBook and the rest are paying for the (legally permitted) personal data they collect and then benefit from commercially. That's the way to tackle the "offshore" tax structures adopted by FB and the rest.

2) I believe this thread started out as a discussion on how Venezuela has worked out for Chavez and his successor, Maduro.

Enough from me on this subject.