The price of everything, the value of nothing

ElBurroSinNombre

Well-known member
This European Super League proposal, for me at least, demonstrates something that is fundamentally wrong with the UK and the same problem also applies to many different industries and sectors that do not grab as much public attention. That is, if you will sell anything to anybody then you cannot really complain when things happen that you do not like because they are beyond your control. Football is one example where owners are from all parts of the world, often with no connection or understanding of the communities in which the clubs come from. More worryingly from a national security point of view, large portions (perhaps the majority) of our vital infrastructure are owned by foreign investors and governments who may not care as much as you would hope about the average UK citizen. Water, electricity, gas, rubbish collection, railways etc, all owned at least partly by foreign money, some by what could be seen as enemies of the state (like the Chinese government). The other downside is of course that any profits made in these industries flow out of the country and into the coffers of investors based in other parts of the world. Both major parties have aided and abetted this process with the Conservatives kicking things off by selling large portions of state owned assets in the 80s and 90s likened by a Tory grandee at the time to 'selling the family silver'.

Anyway in terms of starting a discussion, Is it time for more regulation of these industries and for more legislation to protect UK consumers? Should the state start to buy back portions of our infrastructure and return to a form of nationalisation? Is the pendulum of opinion swinging away from the lassiez-faire market based model back to more of a regulated equilibrium between citizens, services they need and the state? Is it odd that the government seems so keen to intervene in football (which is essentially entertainment) but will not intervene in other markets which are far more crucial to national security?

Is it possible that in the current atmosphere of fervent nationalism, there is a place for a new definition of patriotism- a patriotism where we keep our vital infrastructure at home and do not sell it to the highest bidder? Perhaps this sort of thing could be a popular line of attack for the centre left.

Interested to hear other views on this.
 
Unfortunately we fell for an extreme form of capitalism where everything is for sale. It's a short term approach that have a long term detriment to this country. One example is the Chinese investment in this country from infrastructure projects to universities. They have embedded themselves here, we accepted it for short term gain, they did it for long term gain. When we had a spat over Hong Kong it comes back to bite you in the arse. Unfortunately I think this trend will continue as we lose global influence and we continue to suck up further to the Chinese, Indians, the US.
 
Last edited:
This European Super League proposal, for me at least, demonstrates something that is fundamentally wrong with the UK and the same problem also applies to many different industries and sectors that do not grab as much public attention. That is, if you will sell anything to anybody then you cannot really complain when things happen that you do not like because they are beyond your control. Football is one example where owners are from all parts of the world, often with no connection or understanding of the communities in which the clubs come from. More worryingly from a national security point of view, large portions (perhaps the majority) of our vital infrastructure are owned by foreign investors and governments who may not care as much as you would hope about the average UK citizen. Water, electricity, gas, rubbish collection, railways etc, all owned at least partly by foreign money, some by what could be seen as enemies of the state (like the Chinese government). The other downside is of course that any profits made in these industries flow out of the country and into the coffers of investors based in other parts of the world. Both major parties have aided and abetted this process with the Conservatives kicking things off by selling large portions of state owned assets in the 80s and 90s likened by a Tory grandee at the time to 'selling the family silver'.

Anyway in terms of starting a discussion, Is it time for more regulation of these industries and for more legislation to protect UK consumers? Should the state start to buy back portions of our infrastructure and return to a form of nationalisation? Is the pendulum of opinion swinging away from the lassiez-faire market based model back to more of a regulated equilibrium between citizens, services they need and the state? Is it odd that the government seems so keen to intervene in football (which is essentially entertainment) but will not intervene in other markets which are far more crucial to national security?

Is it possible that in the current atmosphere of fervent nationalism, there is a place for a new definition of patriotism- a patriotism where we keep our vital infrastructure at home and do not sell it to the highest bidder? Perhaps this sort of thing could be a popular line of attack for the centre left.

Interested to hear other views on this.
As it happens, the pandemic has forced the hand of the Government on the railways, and they are de facto nationalised again, with three of the biggest franchises not being offered up again when they lapse next year. The Scottish and Welsh Governments have said they'll be taking over in their areas, and LNER has been in state hands for a a couple of years now after the franchise holders said they couldn't make the amount they forecast.

The key utilities shouldn't be in overseas hands but they are, ditto the communications network.

What a mess.
 
As it happens, the pandemic has forced the hand of the Government on the railways, and they are de facto nationalised again, with three of the biggest franchises not being offered up again when they lapse next year. The Scottish and Welsh Governments have said they'll be taking over in their areas, and LNER has been in state hands for a a couple of years now after the franchise holders said they couldn't make the amount they forecast.

The key utilities shouldn't be in overseas hands but they are, ditto the communications network.

What a mess.
Same can be said for Rolls Royce, Jaguar, British Steel, they should never have fallen in to overseas hands.

Sadly as in the case of this European super league money is everything nothing else comes even close.
 
This European Super League proposal, for me at least, demonstrates something that is fundamentally wrong with the UK

Problem is that the main driver of this scheme is the two Spanish clubs, who are fundamentally bankrupt, and who need the extra revenue to survive, the owners of the UK clubs are just clueless.

So you're complaining about "the UK model", but then advocating "the Spanish model", which has generated the same, if not worse, results.
 
I have been banging the strategic industries and utilities drum for years. It is absolutely barking mad to allow another sovereign country to control our energy, water, transport, telecommunications and defence industry. It is another in the very long line of decisions taken to sell things we own to other people to make profit for a small group.

We would lose a war without firing a shot, they could just close us down. Utter insanity driven by individual greed.
 
Problem is that the main driver of this scheme is the two Spanish clubs, who are fundamentally bankrupt, and who need the extra revenue to survive, the owners of the UK clubs are just clueless.

So you're complaining about "the UK model", but then advocating "the Spanish model", which has generated the same, if not worse, results.
I'm not advocating anything at all, I'm interested in opinions. Unlike you, I don't think that the owners of the UK clubs are clueless - I'd say they are greedy and don't have to care what anybody thinks about it - including the group that should be the main stakeholders, the fans. My post was really about how we are in a situation where this can happen in football and elsewhere.
Perhaps you could suggest a course of action, given that the PM and government do seem to be 'adopting the Spanish model' by talking so bluntly about intervention to stop this.
 
I'm not advocating anything at all, I'm interested in opinions.

If you're going to say that this shows "everything that is wrong with the UK", then by implication you are advocating something different, so if it's not the Spanish model, what is that you do want, or do you not know?


Unlike you, I don't think that the owners of the UK clubs are clueless - I'd say they are greedy and don't have to care what anybody thinks about it

I'll let others draw their own conclusions: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/footbal...er-league-no-one-wants-cannot-even-run-clubs/

Pérez has long sought to eliminate the financial supremacy of the Premier League, built on the equality that Spain’s Liga will not tolerate, and he has found a way in via the soft underbelly of the American ownerships.

My 2p is it won't work, the PL, FA and other authorities won't stand for it and will find a way to block it and the clubs will pay a very heavy price indeed.


Perhaps you could suggest a course of action

AFAIK the competition is a breach of PL competition rules, they should take the lead on this, the only possibly sanction against the clubs is expulsion from the league and only if the PL is unwilling/unable to do this should the government step in.

Similar sanctions should happen at the European level, if necessary against national leagues, to ensure that the other clubs involved are punished.
 
If you're going to say that this shows "everything that is wrong with the UK", then by implication you are advocating something different, so if it's not the Spanish model, what is that you do want, or do you not know?
Where have I said 'this shows everything that is wrong with the UK', where is your source for this misinformation? If you are going to quote me please be more accurate. And therefore I am not making any argument by implication as you would have it because I didn't say what you have typed.

I am actually genuinely interested in this. Do Conservatives like yourself, think that UK government intervention is warranted in football?
If so, why - it's a market after all, why should the state get involved?
And if intervention is Ok in this situation, why not in other situations that are much more of a risk to national security?
Or does populism mean that you should intervene in football governance but stay out of, for instance, the electricity market?
 
Last edited:
Tangerinemoss- you are talking far too much sense. Oh i have hated this sell off over the years and it is always the people less well off whom suffer most who can ill afford significant price increases which are always inevitable. The nation literally is at the mercy of others and that is criminal.
 
I have been banging the strategic industries and utilities drum for years. It is absolutely barking mad to allow another sovereign country to control our energy, water, transport, telecommunications and defence industry. It is another in the very long line of decisions taken to sell things we own to other people to make profit for a small group.

We would lose a war without firing a shot, they could just close us down. Utter insanity driven by individual greed.
Sovereignty, control of borders the Brexit mantra, yet complete control of essentials in the hands of foreign powers. Madness
 
Having worked in the organisation which has a public face called the Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure then I share the concern of the original post. There are so many risks to us. Much work is ongoing but I can’t help feeling woefully inadequate against determined threat. Our lack of acceptance of pandemic risk and the need to prepare in advance has only highlighted this.
 
Where have I said 'this shows everything that is wrong with the UK', where is your source for this misinformation? If you are going to quote me please be more accurate. And therefore I am not making any argument by implication as you would have it because I didn't say what you have typed.

Sorry, my quote isn't strictly accurate:

This European Super League proposal, for me at least, demonstrates something that is fundamentally wrong with the UK and the same problem also applies to many different industries and sectors that do not grab as much public attention.

However in my view the meaning is the same.


I am actually genuinely interested in this. Do Conservatives like yourself, think that UK government intervention is warranted in football?

The PL and other football bodies appear to have sufficient powers to deal with the situation so they should do so in the first instance, if that isn't sufficient then the government can look at the reasons why and proceed from there.


If so, why - it's a market after all, why should the state get involved?
And if intervention is Ok in this situation, why not in other situations that are much more of a risk to national security?
Or does populism mean that you should intervene in football governance but stay out of, for instance, the electricity market?

There are competition laws, this is nothing new, we have regulators for industries where competition doesn't work properly (OFGEM for the electricity market) and an overall regulatory authority to oversee everything.

On the face of it the six clubs have formed a cartel, this is against the law, even if not the actions clearly appear to be an attempt to stymie competition, which is the root of a properly functioning market, thus government intervention may be warranted.

But as I said, let's see what the PL does first.
 
This European Super League proposal, for me at least, demonstrates something that is fundamentally wrong with the UK and the same problem also applies to many different industries and sectors that do not grab as much public attention. That is, if you will sell anything to anybody then you cannot really complain when things happen that you do not like because they are beyond your control. Football is one example where owners are from all parts of the world, often with no connection or understanding of the communities in which the clubs come from. More worryingly from a national security point of view, large portions (perhaps the majority) of our vital infrastructure are owned by foreign investors and governments who may not care as much as you would hope about the average UK citizen. Water, electricity, gas, rubbish collection, railways etc, all owned at least partly by foreign money, some by what could be seen as enemies of the state (like the Chinese government). The other downside is of course that any profits made in these industries flow out of the country and into the coffers of investors based in other parts of the world. Both major parties have aided and abetted this process with the Conservatives kicking things off by selling large portions of state owned assets in the 80s and 90s likened by a Tory grandee at the time to 'selling the family silver'.

Anyway in terms of starting a discussion, Is it time for more regulation of these industries and for more legislation to protect UK consumers? Should the state start to buy back portions of our infrastructure and return to a form of nationalisation? Is the pendulum of opinion swinging away from the lassiez-faire market based model back to more of a regulated equilibrium between citizens, services they need and the state? Is it odd that the government seems so keen to intervene in football (which is essentially entertainment) but will not intervene in other markets which are far more crucial to national security?

Is it possible that in the current atmosphere of fervent nationalism, there is a place for a new definition of patriotism- a patriotism where we keep our vital infrastructure at home and do not sell it to the highest bidder? Perhaps this sort of thing could be a popular line of attack for the centre left.

Interested to hear other views on this.
Normally I wouldnt respond to this on a match day, I have a little rule where i only do football topics on match days, but as it is kind of linked and i still cant do any work, cos my server is out of action thought id stick my penneth worth in.

It's not just a problem with the UK, it is the whole economic system which is fundamentally broken and only survives because regulations are specifically designed to maintain the broken system. The core of the problem as I see it is the hegemony of systems and entities over people. Austerity was designed to protect the economic system, the financial system and the banks in the hope that eventually those protection would filter throuh the the population.

There are some major problems with privatisation of utilities and other elements of national infrastructure in that the economic models for profitability mean that everything has to be looked at in three year cycles or shorter. So infrastructure is neglected in favour of making a few extra bucks today. The only way to make profit in these sectors is to abandon the future, or to price it so that it is only just affordable and that is where we are at. Infrastructure is deteriorating and energy prices for example are rising exponentially and almost every energy company is saddled with a debt that sooner or later will bankrupt them, unless state aid is available.

Patriotism is a simple way to create anger and to get particularly nasty individuals into positions of power. Farage, that patriot of patriots is currently pushing international investment companies at his supporters, and has been a strong advocate of american style and american owned health care providers. he has lobbied for many years for US access to the NHS and the UK health market.

The chinese invest in foreign infrastructure because they have a 50 / 100 / 200 year plan for global economic dominance. They are the ultimate purveyors of systems over people.

The centre left or the hard left cannot answer these problems because it needs an entirely different model. Like the ESL issue, where it might be the re-set that is needed, the economy and social systems needs to be re-set. The hard left cant fix it because they are still obsessed with an early twentieth century marxist inspired socialism, which - does - not - work: the centre left can't fix it because they just have a slight variation on neo-liberalism with a slightly more regulated corporate hegemony. The right and centre right can go on because they are only interested in serving a few.

Theres an economist I follow, who says some interesting things, and has a view which encompasses a thousand years of historic economic analysis, and addresses for example, interest rates over that period of time as a comparative. My issue with it is that the economic models over almost all of that period were design and managed to benefit 2 or 3% of the population. People were a resource. For a very small period of time post WW2 and a shorter period after WW1, there was economic thinking designed to benefit the majority. This was abandoned in the early eighties, and now we are back to the point where the economic system treat people as resourcesto be exploited and latterly a product to be sold.

The only fix is to address the economy for everyone and put people above systems and entities, and that includes governmental entities.
 
Normally I wouldnt respond to this on a match day, I have a little rule where i only do football topics on match days, but as it is kind of linked and i still cant do any work, cos my server is out of action thought id stick my penneth worth in.

It's not just a problem with the UK, it is the whole economic system which is fundamentally broken and only survives because regulations are specifically designed to maintain the broken system. The core of the problem as I see it is the hegemony of systems and entities over people. Austerity was designed to protect the economic system, the financial system and the banks in the hope that eventually those protection would filter throuh the the population.

There are some major problems with privatisation of utilities and other elements of national infrastructure in that the economic models for profitability mean that everything has to be looked at in three year cycles or shorter. So infrastructure is neglected in favour of making a few extra bucks today. The only way to make profit in these sectors is to abandon the future, or to price it so that it is only just affordable and that is where we are at. Infrastructure is deteriorating and energy prices for example are rising exponentially and almost every energy company is saddled with a debt that sooner or later will bankrupt them, unless state aid is available.

Patriotism is a simple way to create anger and to get particularly nasty individuals into positions of power. Farage, that patriot of patriots is currently pushing international investment companies at his supporters, and has been a strong advocate of american style and american owned health care providers. he has lobbied for many years for US access to the NHS and the UK health market.

The chinese invest in foreign infrastructure because they have a 50 / 100 / 200 year plan for global economic dominance. They are the ultimate purveyors of systems over people.

The centre left or the hard left cannot answer these problems because it needs an entirely different model. Like the ESL issue, where it might be the re-set that is needed, the economy and social systems needs to be re-set. The hard left cant fix it because they are still obsessed with an early twentieth century marxist inspired socialism, which - does - not - work: the centre left can't fix it because they just have a slight variation on neo-liberalism with a slightly more regulated corporate hegemony. The right and centre right can go on because they are only interested in serving a few.

Theres an economist I follow, who says some interesting things, and has a view which encompasses a thousand years of historic economic analysis, and addresses for example, interest rates over that period of time as a comparative. My issue with it is that the economic models over almost all of that period were design and managed to benefit 2 or 3% of the population. People were a resource. For a very small period of time post WW2 and a shorter period after WW1, there was economic thinking designed to benefit the majority. This was abandoned in the early eighties, and now we are back to the point where the economic system treat people as resourcesto be exploited and latterly a product to be sold.

The only fix is to address the economy for everyone and put people above systems and entities, and that includes governmental entities.

Very interesting post Costero. That makes a lot of sense. Maybe we need a Centre Left Party that will start with a few strategic nationalisations to get things moving, and hopefully display to the public and media etc the potential long term benefits?
Any chance you could let us know which economist it is that you follow?
I will fully understand if you do not wish to.
 
Very interesting post Costero. That makes a lot of sense. Maybe we need a Centre Left Party that will start with a few strategic nationalisations to get things moving, and hopefully display to the public and media etc the potential long term benefits?
Any chance you could let us know which economist it is that you follow?
I will fully understand if you do not wish to.
mark blyth is one with the 1000 year analysis - read his book on austerity, but also there is a german called richard werner who has some interesting ideas.
 
When you think about multi-national companies controlling big business and foreign moguls owning so much of the property market here, it makes you wonder how much of the UK is actually owned by UK citizens, especially when the richest UK citizens hide their money offshore.
 
I have been banging the strategic industries and utilities drum for years. It is absolutely barking mad to allow another sovereign country to control our energy, water, transport, telecommunications and defence industry. It is another in the very long line of decisions taken to sell things we own to other people to make profit for a small group.

We would lose a war without firing a shot, they could just close us down. Utter insanity driven by individual greed.
Hear, hear!
 
Normally I wouldnt respond to this on a match day, I have a little rule where i only do football topics on match days, but as it is kind of linked and i still cant do any work, cos my server is out of action thought id stick my penneth worth in.

It's not just a problem with the UK, it is the whole economic system which is fundamentally broken and only survives because regulations are specifically designed to maintain the broken system. The core of the problem as I see it is the hegemony of systems and entities over people. Austerity was designed to protect the economic system, the financial system and the banks in the hope that eventually those protection would filter throuh the the population.

There are some major problems with privatisation of utilities and other elements of national infrastructure in that the economic models for profitability mean that everything has to be looked at in three year cycles or shorter. So infrastructure is neglected in favour of making a few extra bucks today. The only way to make profit in these sectors is to abandon the future, or to price it so that it is only just affordable and that is where we are at. Infrastructure is deteriorating and energy prices for example are rising exponentially and almost every energy company is saddled with a debt that sooner or later will bankrupt them, unless state aid is available.

Patriotism is a simple way to create anger and to get particularly nasty individuals into positions of power. Farage, that patriot of patriots is currently pushing international investment companies at his supporters, and has been a strong advocate of american style and american owned health care providers. he has lobbied for many years for US access to the NHS and the UK health market.

The chinese invest in foreign infrastructure because they have a 50 / 100 / 200 year plan for global economic dominance. They are the ultimate purveyors of systems over people.

The centre left or the hard left cannot answer these problems because it needs an entirely different model. Like the ESL issue, where it might be the re-set that is needed, the economy and social systems needs to be re-set. The hard left cant fix it because they are still obsessed with an early twentieth century marxist inspired socialism, which - does - not - work: the centre left can't fix it because they just have a slight variation on neo-liberalism with a slightly more regulated corporate hegemony. The right and centre right can go on because they are only interested in serving a few.

Theres an economist I follow, who says some interesting things, and has a view which encompasses a thousand years of historic economic analysis, and addresses for example, interest rates over that period of time as a comparative. My issue with it is that the economic models over almost all of that period were design and managed to benefit 2 or 3% of the population. People were a resource. For a very small period of time post WW2 and a shorter period after WW1, there was economic thinking designed to benefit the majority. This was abandoned in the early eighties, and now we are back to the point where the economic system treat people as resourcesto be exploited and latterly a product to be sold.

The only fix is to address the economy for everyone and put people above systems and entities, and that includes governmental entities.
Very interesting read Costero. When I have time I will come back to you with my detailed thoughts. For now I will pick out some brief points:
Systems can be beneficial, be they social, economic or political. However, they have to work at the service of people, not the other way around. In fact, without accepting that precondition environmental policies aimed at mitigating global warming will fail.
Your dismissal of socialism is a bit weak. Marxism, as a philosophy, has something to add to our understanding of how political concepts (ethics, morality, power) might be best incorporated into our public lives. So do nationalism, Liberalism and other political philosophies.
However, British socialism, having grown out of our early industrialisation and the communities that developed from it does, I would argue have potential for working to benefit communities and not economic systems.
Anyway, that all for now.
 
Very interesting read Costero. When I have time I will come back to you with my detailed thoughts. For now I will pick out some brief points:
Systems can be beneficial, be they social, economic or political. However, they have to work at the service of people, not the other way around. In fact, without accepting that precondition environmental policies aimed at mitigating global warming will fail.
Your dismissal of socialism is a bit weak. Marxism, as a philosophy, has something to add to our understanding of how political concepts (ethics, morality, power) might be best incorporated into our public lives. So do nationalism, Liberalism and other political philosophies.
However, British socialism, having grown out of our early industrialisation and the communities that developed from it does, I would argue have potential for working to benefit communities and not economic systems.
Anyway, that all for now.
So before you respond I will make some more detailed observations. I’m not dismissing systems they are very important but systems and entities take precedence over people, austerity was a prime example as I said. I agree with you wholeheartedly about systems at the service of people, and a bug bear of mine is possibly like yourself is how green politics effectively dismisses the needs of people to build their eco systems, but I also think that systems in the “service” of people doesn’t go far enough. The system itself has to be humanistic in nature. That might be seen as semantics, but I think there is an important distinction.

My dismissal of socialism was a bit hyperbolic. I agree with you about Marxism as a philosophy, it has a lot of things that could point us to better ways. As an aside I once had a “discussion” with a right wing free-market advocate about how Thatcher incorporated the basis of Marxist thinking in promoting share ownership for all. In many respects it was ownership by the producers / consumers, obviously Thatcher was not a Marxist but the individual I was talking to didn’t get the basic idea of shared endeavour. There is some irony in that thatcher pulled on Marxist ideas ideas of shared endeavour to push individualism.

To come back to my dismissal of socialism, I’ll try to explain my point of view. Hard left socialism is in general a very conservative movement, Corbyn in the UK, and Iglesias in Spain are two prime examples, they continually look to an early twentieth century model of Marxist socialism which I think is distorted from the philosophy and tends towards State ownership as the basic manifestation of collectivism. Because of the way we have developed over the last 80 years or so “the state” is not “the people”. The state is a system that people adopt to. The general population of all nations through history have had to adapt to the system set by a few leaders; Crowns, Governments, Religious and Industrial, amongst others, and the system has always been designed to benefit those few leaders.

Socialism simply replaces those leaders with the state. If people were properly represented then that might work, but the population is not properly represented in any socialist model, democratic or not (based on current democratic models being the ability of people to have an unhindered vote every 4 to 6 years), the system takes precedence, and legislation and regulation has to be developed that supports the system, which the populace has to adapt to, it’s a circle of activity. Current capitalism is doing the same, it has failed, but it now has legislative and regulative frameworks that support it artificially, and the more it is supported artificially the more legislation and regulation or less depending on your perspective is required to ensure people adapt to the model and the model continues to be seen as successful.

At the heart of it is a problem with economic functionality, which is most cases is economic growth (personal, corporate and state) or even worse across the euro zone, the maintenance of low inflation which supposedly stimulates economic growth, which is a fallacy, but a fallacy which is accepted as a fundamental economic truth where it matters.

The necessary economic functionality will still be there under any degree of left or right political governance, hard right is individualism in respect of personal security, hard left is a push to state ownership in the belief that the state will share whatever success it gains fairly. I have a number of reasons why I think it can’t be shared fairly, most of which is to do with humanistic responses and population size.

My argument is that there are certain types of business that you cannot make profit from (in any way that supports listing, private shareholding and constant growth of earnings and profits) energy is one such example. The model for future energy security has to be different from what we have today (privatised profit generators) or the past alternatives (state ownership). In most respects energy is a supporting mechanism, and should be treated economically as such. When you do that the company needs, and the way success is measured looks very different. Instead of economic / financial growth you can look to security of supply across generations. That makes the green transition fundamentally more functional as well.

I’ll leave it there for now but look forward to a response.
 
Very interesting read Costero. When I have time I will come back to you with my detailed thoughts. For now I will pick out some brief points:
Systems can be beneficial, be they social, economic or political. However, they have to work at the service of people, not the other way around. In fact, without accepting that precondition environmental policies aimed at mitigating global warming will fail.
Your dismissal of socialism is a bit weak. Marxism, as a philosophy, has something to add to our understanding of how political concepts (ethics, morality, power) might be best incorporated into our public lives. So do nationalism, Liberalism and other political philosophies.
However, British socialism, having grown out of our early industrialisation and the communities that developed from it does, I would argue have potential for working to benefit communities and not economic systems.
Anyway, that all for now.
bump for 1966
 
Normally I wouldnt respond to this on a match day, I have a little rule where i only do football topics on match days, but as it is kind of linked and i still cant do any work, cos my server is out of action thought id stick my penneth worth in.

It's not just a problem with the UK, it is the whole economic system which is fundamentally broken and only survives because regulations are specifically designed to maintain the broken system. The core of the problem as I see it is the hegemony of systems and entities over people. Austerity was designed to protect the economic system, the financial system and the banks in the hope that eventually those protection would filter throuh the the population.

There are some major problems with privatisation of utilities and other elements of national infrastructure in that the economic models for profitability mean that everything has to be looked at in three year cycles or shorter. So infrastructure is neglected in favour of making a few extra bucks today. The only way to make profit in these sectors is to abandon the future, or to price it so that it is only just affordable and that is where we are at. Infrastructure is deteriorating and energy prices for example are rising exponentially and almost every energy company is saddled with a debt that sooner or later will bankrupt them, unless state aid is available.

Patriotism is a simple way to create anger and to get particularly nasty individuals into positions of power. Farage, that patriot of patriots is currently pushing international investment companies at his supporters, and has been a strong advocate of american style and american owned health care providers. he has lobbied for many years for US access to the NHS and the UK health market.

The chinese invest in foreign infrastructure because they have a 50 / 100 / 200 year plan for global economic dominance. They are the ultimate purveyors of systems over people.

The centre left or the hard left cannot answer these problems because it needs an entirely different model. Like the ESL issue, where it might be the re-set that is needed, the economy and social systems needs to be re-set. The hard left cant fix it because they are still obsessed with an early twentieth century marxist inspired socialism, which - does - not - work: the centre left can't fix it because they just have a slight variation on neo-liberalism with a slightly more regulated corporate hegemony. The right and centre right can go on because they are only interested in serving a few.

Theres an economist I follow, who says some interesting things, and has a view which encompasses a thousand years of historic economic analysis, and addresses for example, interest rates over that period of time as a comparative. My issue with it is that the economic models over almost all of that period were design and managed to benefit 2 or 3% of the population. People were a resource. For a very small period of time post WW2 and a shorter period after WW1, there was economic thinking designed to benefit the majority. This was abandoned in the early eighties, and now we are back to the point where the economic system treat people as resourcesto be exploited and latterly a product to be sold.

The only fix is to address the economy for everyone and put people above systems and entities, and that includes governmental entities.
Hi Costero.

Firstly, apologies for not coming back to you sooner with my detailed comments. Life has got in the way a bit and I haven’t had much time to gather my thoughts. Your posts are indeed a compelling read and demand a rigorous examination. Not that message boards are set up for this type of thing. Ordinarily, immediacy is the name of the game. Then again, why not go for a more involved discussion?

So, where to start. Well, with your over-arching theme seems a reasonable place; the notion that we are run by systems and entities for their own sake and not for the benefit of people. You begin by saying that “the whole [world?] economic system…is fundamentally broken and only survives because regulations are specifically designed to maintain the broken system.” I’ll demur slightly – but only as a brief aside – by noting that regulations were too weak to prevent the 2008 banking crisis, for example, and that regulations in UK social policy dramatically failed to prevent the rampant spread of Covid in UK care homes. However, you move on quickly to establish your key theme, that the core of the problem is the hegemony of systems and entities over people. To illustrate this you consider the post-banking crisis policy of economic austerity suggesting that it was “designed to protect the economic system, the financial system and the banks in the hope that eventually those protections would filter through [to] the population.”

Here I agree with your reasoning but not what you see as being the ‘stated’ intention of austerity. Because, it was never intended that the financial system & banks be protected for the benefit of people, It was always and only for the benefit of profit. Whilst the profit motive remains the great organiser, the raison d'être of economic activity, it will remain unsaid in the public lobbies of the powerful. The French journalist Vivianne Forrester described profit in her book, The Economic Horror, as being the entity for which all economic activity is organised, planned prevented or induced. “[this] then seems inevitable, so fused with the very fabric of life that the two cannot be told apart……it is disseminated and active everywhere, but never referred to except in the modest guise of the ‘creation of wealth’ that is supposed to bring immediate benefit to the entire human race and to contain treasures of jobs.”

But these illusory benefits of austerity never have, as you put it, “filtered through the population.” By applying the finesse-lacking, monetary tool of low (almost non-existent) interest rates, the focus of profit has shifted to the accumulation of land assets, nearly all of which have been harvested by the top 1% of the world’s richest. That is where growth now goes. Not into our pockets but into the bricks & mortar of the world’s wealthiest oligarchs. From there it creates nothing but more and more wealth for the owners as the value of these limited assets rockets.

You then narrow your focus to the more practical problems created for our society by persisting with the profit model in the context of national infrastructure. You say that: “There are some major problems with privatisation of utilities and other elements of national infrastructure in that the economic models for profitability mean that everything has to be looked at in three year cycles or shorter. So infrastructure is neglected in favour of making a few extra bucks today. The only way to make profit in these sectors is to abandon the future, or to price it so that it is only just affordable and that is where we are at. Infrastructure is deteriorating and energy prices for example are rising exponentially and almost every energy company is saddled with a debt that sooner or later will bankrupt them, unless state aid is available.” Here our views align but I would take a step further and say that just as Capitalism uses advertising to benefit brands, the State should use advertising to reinforce the message that public ownership is precisely for the benefit of the public. We have huge public communication vehicles available via TV, print media and the internet. Those should be organised to facilitate a continual dialogue with the public as to how our nationalised entities are operated, what their aims & objectives should be and how well they are perceived to be performing. Publicly owned and run utilities’ infrastructures, IT infrastructures and railways should not be faceless monoliths interfacing solely with the public at the point of delivery. There should be interactive hubs where views can be shared and Directors/Management held to account. This is the 21st Century, not the 1950s.

Your sideways shift to a critique of patriotism is an interesting one. Had this discussion taken place even as late as ten years ago, I would have brushed this off as a peripheral sideshow (in advanced western states only, of course). Not now though. It has been used as a weapon to galvanise Brexit and continues to be used as a reductive way of convincing people to accept and legitimise one-dimensional, populist politicians of the far-right. In China, the State-Communist leadership go beyond even this crude populism by subordinating all citizens to the tyranny of the State. In this example I totally agree with your theme of the hegemony of the system – less so in respect of western-style liberal democasies.

However, for me the key issue in the rise of far-right populism is the public’s sense of disenfranchisement; That authorities: European, national & local Government do things to people and that people have no say in this and the authorities cannot be brought to account. Such was the principal anxiety behind Brexit. The likes of Boris Johnson, Gove and Farrage built the EU up as a controlling leviathan over which we had no control. Whatever the truth of this it is easy to see why people should believe it. They might as well have voted for British Antarctic Base MPs as MEPs. It was almost impossible to see how one’s MEP could influence EU trade, economic, defence or social policies.

How we should be run politically in order to redress this feeling of disenfranchisement and to explore how I believe this may illustrate that a hegemony of systems and entities is not inevitable I will leave to another time. I think this thread is long enough as it is.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top