|
Post by scandinavianduchy on Mar 15, 2006 16:44:10 GMT -5
Here I will post some of the OOC threads/posts from ACCEL, so that citizens of Hyrule might become better acquainted with ACCEL, and the people that make it up.
|
|
|
Post by scandinavianduchy on Mar 15, 2006 16:44:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by scandinavianduchy on Mar 15, 2006 16:49:01 GMT -5
*Various exclamations of praise follow* Twickers: Well...the economists were right (*sticking up for his kind*) Thatcher's early moneterism was fruitless. Supply management through bizarre footering with the money supply, and a catstrophic 1981 Budget compounded the problems in the economy. Although in spirit, it was the right thing to do, the early approach was far to crude - note the difference between the handling of economic difficulties in the early 1990s.
'mon the economists!
Southern Britain: Depends on what side of the fence you sit on, and whether you're a Monetarist or a Keynesian economist.
Let's face it, it's thanks to Thactherite economic policy that there was a recovery and we're still enjoying it now, but Brown is threatening it by excess borrowing and high public expenditure. Yes, there were early problems, but it wasn't any worse than the horrible state Labour left the economy in, and the Winter of Discontent of '79. In this case, the Conservative election slogans of 'Labour isn't working' and 'it hurt but it worked' seem very apt indeed.
Come on the Monetarists!
Westmorlandia: Whether Howe's budget was the right move doesn't depend on whether you're a Keynsian or a Monetarist. It is a an objective fact whether it was good or not.
When an economy finds itself in the unfortunate position of being subjected to both inflation and recession ("stagflation"), it is faced with a difficult choice. Lowering interest rates will help the economy but drive inflation up further. Higher interest rates will bring down inflation but hurt the economy. But it does seem to be the case that you need to tackle the inflation first, in which case Howe's budget appears to be on the right track. That is the lesson that Nixon had to learn as well.
Keynsian methods of getting out of recessions (i.e. increasing borrowing) should therefore not be applied where there is stagflation. Or rather, inflation should be controlled and then they should be applied.
What is interesting is that Howe chose to raise taxes rather than cut spending. Either would work just as well, because the key point in these terms is the amount of government borrowing, not its total spending. Funny to see ACCEL applauding tax increases, actually. Laughing
What is also interesting is that the article mentions that cutting borrowing had not worked in the first two years, but that the 1981 budget worked immediately. Budgets generally take at least year or two to have full impact anyway.
|
|
|
Post by scandinavianduchy on Mar 15, 2006 17:04:24 GMT -5
Leg-Ends: ]It seems Dave has been doing a lot of thinking while looking after baby Arthur Elwin. His grand plan is to introduce this document as Conservative law or something. The Beeb website has more. Now it strikes me, that having been elected on a platform of change/modernisation/reform/lcentrist/etc, it's a bit odd to then put a document confirming that to the very people who voted him in. He has his mandate, even the passage of this will still keep the right wing going after him, on the other hand, if he loses this then he would surely have to resign. At best this is yet another Cameron gimmick chipping away at traditional Tory values to get a few days' news headlines. At worst it is a referedum on Cameron only 3 months after being elected by a landslide. Thoughts? (The "commentaries" can be seen here: www.accel.jactivism.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=735)
|
|
|
Post by scandinavianduchy on Jun 1, 2006 10:52:55 GMT -5
We need a revision course on why capitalism is a good thing By James Bartholomew
How did "capitalism" become a dirty word? Hostility has slipped by, unopposed, and become pervasive.
It has even reached sport. Yesterday, a correspondent on Radio 4's Today programme described a proposal coming from the European Union to put a cap on the salaries of footballers. He treated this as though it were probably a good thing. Not the merest hint was there that this was interference with a market and therefore likely - like most interferences in markets - to have unintended, damaging effects.
The Church of England on Monday joined in the anti-capitalist zeitgeist with particular enthusiasm. It issued a report called Faithful Cities in which it questioned "our reliance on market-driven capitalism". The report referred to how capitalism "promotes inequality".
The authors felt no need to provide evidence for it. They just took it as read. The report went on to say that the gap between the rich and those "in poverty" should be reduced. So in the Church's eyes, capitalism produces inequality and this inequality is bad. It is hard to conclude anything other than that the Church of England now regards capitalism generally as bad.
We need a culture check here. A society that widely regards capitalism as bad will, in due course, destroy it. Incredibly, it seems necessary to assert afresh that capitalism is the goose that lays the golden eggs - the foundation of the extraordinary wealth we now enjoy, compared with all previous eras of world history.
I was going to say, "Let's take a revision course in why capitalism is good." But few of us had an initial lesson. I don't suggest that every school should have been teaching the virtues of capitalism, but right now they do precisely the opposite.
They teach that capitalists destroy rainforests, insidiously control American foreign policy and spread the human vices of greed and selfishness. Anti-capitalism is now the subtext of history and geography lessons, as well as politics, economics and sociology. Capitalism is said to have given rise to slavery. The state is depicted as a hero that has tempered the cruelty of the beast with laws, regulations and interventions.
If you have children at school - state or private - he or she will be getting another little dose of anti-capitalist propaganda today. It is absurdly lopsided, of course, and it puts our society on a self-destructive path.
What is the biggest benefit that the relatively poor have experienced over the past two centuries? It is surely the terrific reduction in the cost of food. Two centuries ago, food was the biggest part in a family's budget. It was hard for a poor family to get enough to eat. If there was a shortage, there could be a famine, resulting in thousands of deaths. Even in the 1920s, people on average spent a third of their income on food.
Now they spend only a tenth. Look at any chart of the price of the basic foodstuffs, such as wheat, barley and milk, and you will see almost continuous and deep falls. What has caused this massive benefit to the poor? A series of government regulations? A good-looking politician with an easy smile and a "vision"? No. Capitalism.
No single individual did it. Thousands, or millions, did it. They were not directed by any central agency. They just operated in a capitalist system. They invented farm machinery that replaced many men and therefore made food much cheaper. Farmers deployed these machines. Others created ships that could carry grain cheaply, quickly from faraway lands where food was grown more cheaply. Others still distributed the food in ever more cost-efficient ways, by rail and by road on newly created and deployed trains and lorries.
They did this, each of them living his own separate life in his own undirected way. They transformed the situation. The poor were given food in abundance. They were given it at a price they could easily afford. Shortages, hunger and famine became history. That is what capitalism did. To sneer at it is to sneer at the abolition of hunger in this country.
This has been, perhaps, capitalism's greatest achievement. But that is just the beginning. Capitalism achieved a similar feat in clothing. Two centuries ago, many people had clogs on their feet. Clothing was another major expense for the poor. Nye Bevan, as a child, threw an inkwell at his teacher because the man made fun of a boy whose family could afford only one pair of shoes between the boy and his brother.
That is a measure of the poverty that we have come from. That is the poverty from which capitalism has elevated this country. Again, new and much cheaper methods of production have been put in place by individuals importing cotton, improving textile production techniques, deploying new kinds of transport and distributing the raw material and final products more cheaply. No longer do children share shoes.
Capitalism has made us richer and given us the opportunity of vastly more diverse experiences. Even in my own lifetime, I have seen the normal length of holidays rise from one or two weeks to four or five weeks. Foreign travel that was unknown for most working people two centuries ago is now commonplace. Did government direction make this possible? Of course not.
Most families now have cars. Read Thomas Hardy's novels and you find that people are always walking. Walking can be healthy and pleasant, but the average family of Hardy's time did not have a choice.
Who invented cars? Who refined their design and manufacture to the point where they are affordable by millions of people? Not governments. The diverse, resourceful, determined power of capitalism.
Why does the system work? Because it provides incentives and motivation. If you invent something, you may get fame and fortune. If you supply food or cars cheaper, you get more customers. Simple enough. Provide a good product or service at a low price and you have a business. That simple logic means capitalism tends to produce good products and services at better prices.
What about the argument that capitalism promotes inequality? Let's remember, before even starting to answer, just how disastrous were the attempts in the 20th century to impose equality. Farmers in Leninist Russia were prosecuted and in many cases killed.
Tens of millions died under communist rule in China. And after all the oppression and suffering, there was still no equality. There was the privileged ruling class with, in Russia's case, special dachas in the country and road lanes in town. Imposing equality is not an easy ride. It is oppressive and doomed to failure.
Capitalism, meanwhile, has claims, at the least, to reducing inequality over time. The inequality was enormous when George III was sitting on his gilded throne in 1806, with thousands of servants and farm workers and other underlings at his beck and call, while elsewhere in the country were those who could barely find enough to eat and, in some cases, died of hunger.
Nowadays, more than nine out of 10 young people have mobile phones, 99 per cent of households have colour televisions, most households have cars. Yes, the rich are still with us. But the contrast in financial wealth has been greatly reduced over the long term. That was not due to any government, let alone a deliberate attempt to promote equality. It was achieved by capitalism.
Why is the system now taken for granted and despised? Perhaps it is because the collapse of the communist states has removed from our sight useful reminders of how vastly superior capitalism is to state control. We should be careful.
James Bartholomew is the author of 'The Welfare State We're In', which has recently been published in paperback (Politicos, £12.99)
|
|