After Neo-Liberalism?

[JimW]

I don't know. Both act as a check to a degree, but with a fragmented philosophy to back it up this is useless. The corporate sector has the tendency to run rings around both through lawyers.

And I did not think that the article I posted was arguing against such institutions. All will be part of a post neo-liberal future. Regulation will become more ascendant now that the mask has slipped, but bribery will always exist, and the unions are too fragmented - we have discussed before China's recognition of the need to keep single unions. That needs to happen, but not through having just one. Duties are attached to roles, and thus the unions will need to be part of that discussion.

I have to echo butchers here, this is just nonsense, especially if you think that's what the article is about - the whole point of neoliberalism, founded on the ideas of the thinkers your author quotes, was to attack those institutions in the interests of capital. That's the pseudo-freedom of Hayek, liberating us innovators and risk-takers from the stultifying need to give a fuck about anyone or anything else, emancipating us from the collective organisations and organic communities we used to be part of so we can enjoy the full-on thrill of isolated vulnerability to whatever the people with the money want, or starve if we're excess. It's pure poison.

 

[Gmart]

Done it. Any response from you?

I thought you would.

Still you are consistent in your pattern of behaviour. I am surprised you don't bore yourself with it. I will have to wait until you get bored of your own incomplete analysis.

 

[TruXta]

Eat your tea as well you monster.

I do need some late lunch, guv.

 

[butchersapron]

I thought you would.

Still you are consistent in your pattern of behaviour. I am surprised you don't bore yourself with it. I will have to wait until you get bored of your own incomplete analysis.

Get cracking then. Any response to what i said?

 

[butchersapron]

I note that having principles is suspect in your world.

 

[Gmart]

I have to echo butchers here, this is just nonsense, especially if you think that's what the article is about - the whole point of neoliberalism, founded on the ideas of the thinkers your author quotes, was to attack those institutions in the interests of capital. That's the pseudo-freedom of Hayek, liberating us innovators and risk-takers from the stultifying need to give a fuck about anyone or anything else, emancipating us from the collective organisations and organic communities we used to be part of so we can enjoy the full-on thrill of isolated vulnerability to whatever the people with the money want, or starve if we're excess. It's pure poison.

I would counsel hesitation if you find yourself writing that first sentence.
Capital will always exist. Just trying to dismiss it like that is simplistic and forgetful of the large numbers of people who value assets.
Also, like it or not the government does have a priority on job creation, which means attracting business, which means entrepreneurs and investment. We can talk about the actions that a government can take to cooperatise the economy, and that is also a solution, but this not a mutually exclusive issue.

Thank you for engaging though. Butchers has a tendency to be unable to engage unless he feels that he is on safe ground, which is quite a narrow walkway - otherwise he abuses to distract others from noticing.

 

[butchersapron]

I would counsel hesitation if you find yourself writing that first sentence.

Note the if and the uncle.

 

[Gmart]

Get cracking then. Any response to what i said?

You didn't say anything, you just directed me to another part of the thread rather than engaging, as always.

 

[butchersapron]

value assets. That's capitalism. Right?

 

[butchersapron]

You didn't say anything, you just directed me to another part of the thread rather than engaging, as always.

I did, i directed you to a part of the thread wherein the OP's question is answered. You?

 

[JimW]

I would counsel hesitation if you find yourself writing that first sentence.
Capital will always exist. Just trying to dismiss it like that is simplistic and forgetful of the large numbers of people who value assets...

It hasn't always existed, it's a particular type of social relationship. Why should it be exempt from historical change?

 

[Gmart]

Still waiting for you to address the issue as it has evolved more recently. You seem stuck in the past. Again. As usual

This thread is about After Neo-liberalism, so can hardly be described as very specific, so I don't see why I need to go back when you have failed to address any of the points I have already made. Anyway, as I said LBJ commented on your post, and you failed to engage with his answer there (as usual), so I'll wait for your response to that if it comes.

 

[butchersapron]

The falcon swoops

This thread is about After Neo-liberalism, so can hardly be described as very specific, so I don't see why I need to go back

 

[Gmart]

It hasn't always existed, it's a particular type of social relationship. Why should it be exempt from historical change?

It hasn't always existed, but it certainly exists now. People value assets, and will continue to do so. Any worldview that you (and others) might have will need to respect this view even if you disagree with the basic premise.

In fact, most people end up building some asset or other for their old age because it makes sense. The socialist ideal of housing for all is an anachronism, and the left needs to recognise that. Property ownership, like markets, is ingrained in the people, and as I have stated on the copyright thread you have to accept this rather than hoping that magically everyone will see the error of their ways.

Maybe in the future it will evolve again, if we are able to cooperatise the economy, or through some other method, but for now these are basics which are accepted worldwide. People own stuff for themselves, and their family. Any solution has to incorporate this.

 

[butchersapron]

People value assets

what has this knob read the last week that says this?

 

[JimW]

You don't know what capital is, do you? I knew I was wasting my time, but didn't realise how badly.

 

[butchersapron]

It hasn't always existed, but it certainly exists now. People value assets, and will continue to do so. Any worldview that you (and others) might have will need to respect this view even if you disagree with the basic premise.

In fact, most people end up building some asset or other for their old age because it makes sense. The socialist ideal of housing for all is an anachronism, and the left needs to recognise that. Property ownership, like markets, is ingrained in the people, and as I have stated on the copyright thread you have to accept this rather than hoping that magically everyone will see the error of their ways.

Maybe in the future it will evolve again, if we are able to cooperatise the economy, or through some other method, but for now these are basics which are accepted worldwide. People own stuff for themselves, and their family. Any solution has to incorporate this.

You are unerringly stupid. You're sort of admirable.

 

[butchersapron]

You don't know what capital is, do you? I knew I was wasting my time, but didn't realise how badly.

Welcome to my world - there is much fun to be had with sticks though.

 

[JimW]

Welcome to my world - there is much fun to be had with sticks though.

They just seem to sink into the Austrian mush.

 

[Gmart]

You don't know what capital is, do you? I knew I was wasting my time, but didn't realise how badly.

Saying this while failing to produce even a basic critique would seem a strange response. Do you claim that people do not use capital assets as collatoral for example? As a basis for a loan or mortgage? That is what I mean by people valuing assets. The individual and the institution (usually) both share a view that the asset is worth money, to varying degrees of liquidity.

If you feel this is not the discussion you wish to be in then fine, but implying that I am wasting your time is not true. I am simply responding differently to how you would like.

 

[butchersapron]

Do they...value assets? What drivel have you recently read g-man? Name your shame.

 

[butchersapron]

If you feel this is not the discussion you wish to be in then fine

Oh but you make it so worthwhile. You keep giving.

 

[JimW]

The strange response is you repeating a completely erroneous assertion than capital means something to do with "people valuing assets". I could "respond differently" by giving you an overview of today's football fixtures with about the same relevance to the points you thought you were engaging me on.

 

[Gmart]

The strange response is you repeating a completely erroneous assertion than capital means something to do with "people valuing assets". I could "respond differently" by giving you an overview of today's football fixtures with about the same relevance to the points you thought you were engaging me on.

So my example of using capital assets as collatoral is not adequate? How would you describe capital then?

 

[butchersapron]

So my example of using capital assets as collatoral is not adequate? How would you describe capital then?

Don't need to. Just need to laugh at your definition. Because it's mental.

 

[Riklet]

Property ownership, like markets, is ingrained in the people, and as I have stated on the copyright thread you have to accept this rather than hoping that magically everyone will see the error of their ways.

It's hard to fall for your "woe is me" posting style when this is the stuff you come out with and genuinely believe.

Do you think this stands even in the context of the U.K in the last 30 years, let alone on a different time-frame or location.

 

[butchersapron]

you have to accept this

 

[JimW]

So my example of using capital assets as collatoral is not adequate? How would you describe capital then?

As a social relation of production. We got into this because I'd mentioned 'the interests of capital' - even if you don't take the same view should have been clear I wasn't talking about the interests of 'assets people value' or whatever you're on about.

 

[Gmart]

It's hard to fall for your "woe is me" posting style when this is the stuff you come out with and genuinely believe.

Do you think this stands even in the context of the U.K in the last 30 years, let alone on a different time-frame or location.

Are you suggesting that markets, assets/property ownership are not accepted as part of life by the majority of the population? We have had markets for hundreds of years, and although ownership is more modern most people recognise this as a viable aim in life to get enough assets to pay for one's old age.

 

[JimW]

It's hard to fall for your "woe is me" posting style when this is the stuff you come out with and genuinely believe.

Do you think this stands even in the context of the U.K in the last 30 years, let alone on a different time-frame or location.

Yep - deleted a whole bit about the deliberate engineering to get rid of all the once very content secure tenants of council housing because I couldn't be arsed.