Jeremy Corbyn's time is up

[SpackleFrog]

Yes fair point, although I thought there were rules against it now. Quantitative easing is one form although I think that's buyback of bonds (or something) rather than electronically printing money. I need to read Richard Murphy again. And we could still take the profit away from the banks doing it though.

Well, for this to be even worth talking about, we might have to break some rules.

Courts could be used against such measures too. They would have to be told to swivel on it.

 

[two sheds]

Obama nationalised more banks than Lenin

Didn't know that. They were their banks though, so the point still stands.

 

[redsquirrel]

Well yes but I've been discussing those points ever since my reply to butchers: graph of GDP growth, effect of bearer bonds, flight of capital overseas where it's not taxed and the like. Every point has just been ignored.

I'm sorry but this absolutely not true, they haven't been ignored at all. Myself, danny la rouge, Pickman's model and Rob Ray have tried to discuss these points with you and in your previous post you said that you weren't interested in such a discussion. Which is fine. But then don't say people are ignoring your points.

Sorry about before I was feeling somewhat delicate because I was on the rum last night

EDIT:Sorry I posted my post before I saw your this post. But this discussion about nationalisation (and it's limitations) are part of what we were trying to bring to the thread.

 

[redsquirrel]

Two sheds, in a previous post in my reply to my asking you who you thought "set up" the post war social contract you replied

Set up by the Attlee government in 1945 under pressure from the working class as butchers has pointed out?

Which I think encapsulates some of your confusion here. Firstly, you seen to be confusing the welfare state with the post war consensus, they are not the same thing, although the former is a product of the latter.

(I've got a meeting now so will have to expand on this later)

EDIT: Second, what is typically called the post-war social contact or post war consensus was multi-national circumstance, spanning across the West (under a series of names), coming out of the common material conditions that faced capital across those countries. Hence why we see a similar set of policies being enacted across the UK, Western Europe, US, Canada, Australia, NZ, etc (in many cases by centre-right governments). As such it certainly wasn't set up by the Attlee government. But to say it was not set up at all is not really correct, rather (as has been mentioned previously) it arose the particular interaction of capital and labour at that period in term. Labour exploiting the material conditions to force capital to develop in a particular manner.

 

[SpackleFrog]

Didn't know that. They were their banks though, so the point still stands.

The banks we have here are not our banks. That's the point - we should take possession of them.

 

[two sheds]

have you never heard of governments, who for many centuries have been creating money?

"It is actually illegal for the Bank of England and other equivalent EU central banks to lend directly to the governments that own them, but this has been got round by quantitative easing. " from Richard Murphy's The Joy of Tax.

Murphy fell out with Corbyn but seems to have made up. To Jeremy Corbyn, an apology

 

[Pickman's model]

"It is actually illegal for the Bank of England and other equivalent EU central banks to lend directly to the governments that own them, but this has been got round by quantitative easing. " from Richard Murphy's The Joy of Tax.

Murphy fell out with Corbyn but seems to have made up. To Jeremy Corbyn, an apology

i am glad you have heard of governments.

 

[two sheds]

The banks we have here are not our banks. That's the point - we should take possession of them.

Yes I'd like to see that but I can't see it happening and would be a legal minefield wouldn't it? Having the BoE make the loans would need simpler legislation and take a lot of their profit from them, although I'm not sure how much that might put up bank charges. Also not sure what Corbyn's idea of a Peoples' Bank would do.

 

[two sheds]

i am glad you have heard of governments.

?

 

[Pickman's model]

?

 

[two sheds]

Nope, give me a clue

 

[Sprocket.]

Governments? I remember those.

They used to run countries before the banks and supra-nationals took charge!

 

[SpackleFrog]

Yes I'd like to see that but I can't see it happening and would be a legal minefield wouldn't it? Having the BoE make the loans would need simpler legislation and take a lot of their profit from them, although I'm not sure how much that might put up bank charges. Also not sure what Corbyn's idea of a Peoples' Bank would do.

I am beginning to suspect you are not discussing in good faith.

Well, for this to be even worth talking about, we might have to break some rules.

Courts could be used against such measures too. They would have to be told to swivel on it.

 

[two sheds]

My statement was talking about nationalizing banks which I think might bring legal problems with claims by the banks. Yours was replying to my suggestion that BoE might take over giving loans which I don't think would bring such legal problems because it's not going nearly as far as nationalizing the banks.

Don't understand why this shows bad faith.

 

[SpackleFrog]

My statement was talking about nationalizing banks which I think might bring legal problems with claims by the banks. Yours was replying to my suggestion that BoE might take over giving loans which I don't think would bring such legal problems because it's not going nearly as far as nationalizing the banks.

Don't understand why this shows bad faith.

I made it clear I was talking about expropriating banks and that rules would need to be broken which I'm fine with. You responded to me saying it would be a legal minefield.

Perhaps it's not bad faith, perhaps you didn't understand what I said?

 

[MickiQ]

An incoming Corbyn govt would need to nationalise everything immediately, starting with banks and communications. Discuss.

Money has no value in itself, it works entirely based on trust, When I buy something from the shop, the shopkeeper may not trust me but he doesn't have to, he trusts money and is confident that he can buy stuff with it from other people because they trust money as much as he and I do. It doesn't matter what form money takes, be it cash, cheque or card. it's the trust that counts. Such is our trust in money that most of it doesn't actually exist. The money deposited in banks actually exists only as a few columns in a balance sheet. This is the greatest scam in history and everyone involved knows it but because everyone believes and trusts in it, it works just fine.
If a Govt wants to take control of all that money it doesn't have to muck about sending troops into the banks, it can just order the banks to hand it over, it's just transferring data after all. What it can't do is force people to have confidence in the new order and once people lose confidence in the great scam that is money it stops working, A pound is only worth a pound because we all agree it is. OK The Govt can force its own people to keep using the pound even though they don't trust them anymore though everywhere this has been tried it has eventually come unstuck.
What it can't do is force other countries to use the pound, We're a lot of people on a small island with no natural resources unless we are prepared to go down the NK route then we will need to buy stuff off other countries and for that we need them to trust the pound enough to take it either directly or swap it for their money OR we have to use their money to buy stuff which means we need to sell them stuff accepting payment in their money for it.
In which case we are limited by how much of their money we have, a problem a lot of Third World especially African countries labour under it.
If the UK Govt wants to nationalise anything especially banks without causing people to lose trust in the scam of money then it has to buy them at a fair price it can't just seize them and there is no conceivable way it can afford this.

 

[two sheds]

The post of mine you replied to:

Yes fair point [governments have created money], although I thought there were rules against it now. Quantitative easing is one form although I think that's buyback of bonds (or something) rather than electronically printing money. I need to read Richard Murphy again. And we could still take the profit away from the banks doing it though.

I was talking about the BoE printing money which they could quite easily do if we were out of the EU. The BoE site I linked to said the alternative to the banks printing money would be for the BoE to do it. Didn't mention nationalizing banks.

to which you replied:

Well, for this to be even worth talking about, we might have to break some rules.

Courts could be used against such measures too. They would have to be told to swivel on it.

Not clear that you're talking about nationalizing banks.

 

[Pickman's model]

Money has no value in itself, it works entirely based on trust, When I buy something from the shop, the shopkeeper may not trust me but he doesn't have to, he trusts money and is confident that he can buy stuff with it from other people because they trust money as much as he and I do. It doesn't matter what form money takes, be it cash, cheque or card. it's the trust that counts. Such is our trust in money that most of it doesn't actually exist. The money deposited in banks actually exists only as a few columns in a balance sheet. This is the greatest scam in history and everyone involved knows it but because everyone believes and trusts in it, it works just fine.
If a Govt wants to take control of all that money it doesn't have to muck about sending troops into the banks, it can just order the banks to hand it over, it's just transferring data after all. What it can't do is force people to have confidence in the new order and once people lose confidence in the great scam that is money it stops working, A pound is only worth a pound because we all agree it is. OK The Govt can force its own people to keep using the pound even though they don't trust them anymore though everywhere this has been tried it has eventually come unstuck.
What it can't do is force other countries to use the pound, We're a lot of people on a small island with no natural resources unless we are prepared to go down the NK route then we will need to buy stuff off other countries and for that we need them to trust the pound enough to take it either directly or swap it for their money OR we have to use their money to buy stuff which means we need to sell them stuff accepting payment in their money for it.
In which case we are limited by how much of their money we have, a problem a lot of Third World especially African countries labour under it.
If the UK Govt wants to nationalise anything especially banks without causing people to lose trust in the scam of money then it has to buy them at a fair price it can't just seize them and there is no conceivable way it can afford this.

The UK has no natural resources?

 

[Pickman's model]

Money has no value in itself, it works entirely based on trust, When I buy something from the shop, the shopkeeper may not trust me but he doesn't have to, he trusts money and is confident that he can buy stuff with it from other people because they trust money as much as he and I do. It doesn't matter what form money takes, be it cash, cheque or card. it's the trust that counts. Such is our trust in money that most of it doesn't actually exist. The money deposited in banks actually exists only as a few columns in a balance sheet. This is the greatest scam in history and everyone involved knows it but because everyone believes and trusts in it, it works just fine.
If a Govt wants to take control of all that money it doesn't have to muck about sending troops into the banks, it can just order the banks to hand it over, it's just transferring data after all. What it can't do is force people to have confidence in the new order and once people lose confidence in the great scam that is money it stops working, A pound is only worth a pound because we all agree it is. OK The Govt can force its own people to keep using the pound even though they don't trust them anymore though everywhere this has been tried it has eventually come unstuck.
What it can't do is force other countries to use the pound, We're a lot of people on a small island with no natural resources unless we are prepared to go down the NK route then we will need to buy stuff off other countries and for that we need them to trust the pound enough to take it either directly or swap it for their money OR we have to use their money to buy stuff which means we need to sell them stuff accepting payment in their money for it.
In which case we are limited by how much of their money we have, a problem a lot of Third World especially African countries labour under it.
If the UK Govt wants to nationalise anything especially banks without causing people to lose trust in the scam of money then it has to buy them at a fair price it can't just seize them and there is no conceivable way it can afford this.

Pls link to some evidence the UK has no natural resources

 

[MickiQ]

The UK has no natural resources?

Very little, we grow about half our own food and still have a fair reserve of oil but that's about it, We still have a fair manufacturing sector but much of that is
heavily integrated with the rest of the world especially Europe and we have to buy in stuff. We don't have reserves of iron or copper or rare earths that are needed by high tech industries or ever older style ones so we either buy this stuff in or stop using it.

 

[mojo pixy]

When I buy something from the shop, the shopkeeper may not trust me but he doesn't have to, he trusts money and is confident that he can buy stuff with it from other people because they trust money as much as he and I do.

Credit (Pres. indic. 3rd pers. sing.)
He/she believes (eg. that the funds are there)

Apropos of fuck all really

 

[Pickman's model]

Very little, we grow about half our own food and still have a fair reserve of oil but that's about it, We still have a fair manufacturing sector but much of that is
heavily integrated with the rest of the world especially Europe and we have to buy in stuff. We don't have reserves of iron or copper or rare earths that are needed by high tech industries or ever older style ones so we either buy this stuff in or stop using it.

Woah there, what makes you say no reserves of copper or iron ore, Wikipedia seems to disagree with you

 

[MickiQ]

Woah there, what makes you say no reserves of copper or iron ore, Wikipedia seems to disagree with you

We have physical reserves but we don't mine them much because it's cheaper to import them from where they can be mined more cheaply, that won't change no matter what regime sits in Westminster, if we do decide to opt out of the world banking system and go it alone then we could start digging it out except how would we finance it since other nations probably won't lend us the money and ours is worthless. It's a bit like Venezuela which sits on top of massive reserves of oil but can't afford to extract the damn stuff.

 

[Pickman's model]

We have physical reserves but we don't mine them much because it's cheaper to import them from where they can be mined more cheaply, that won't change no matter what regime sits in Westminster, if we do decide to opt out of the world banking system and go it alone then we could start digging it out except how would we finance it since other nations probably won't lend us the money and ours is worthless. It's a bit like Venezuela which sits on top of massive reserves of oil but can't afford to extract the damn stuff.

And we'd have to import the miners

 

[MickiQ]

And we'd have to import the miners

Nah that's one reason you want a Tory government doing it, they'd just force people on Workfare to do it.
On a more serious note the Govt does need to set up some kind of national bank that invests in technology and developing new industries even if they're not profitable in the short/medium term. Brown for all his failings knew that and was all for the Govt being willing to underwrite loans to companies willing to invest in new business. Cameron and Osborne with their obsession on the market knows best did incalcuable damage when they came in.
I can't remember the details now but there was a Sheffield company that had secured public funding to build a press to make reactor casings, the only one of its kind outside Japan. Osborne just pulled the plug on it and told them to go to the banks. The banks wouldn't lend money on such a high risk project and it never got built. That is the kind of thing we need but that won't get done with the current obsession with "Let The Market Decide"

 

[Sprocket.]

I can't remember the details now but there was a Sheffield company that had secured public funding to build a press to make reactor casings, the only one of its kind outside Japan. Osborne just pulled the plug on it and told them to go to the banks. The banks wouldn't lend money on such a high risk project and it never got built. That is the kind of thing we need but that won't get done with the current obsession with "Let The Market Decide"

It was Forgemasters, the money £80m, was promised by Mandelson, but stopped by the coalition in 2010.
Obviously Osborne was responsible but got their lackeys, Danny Alexander and Vince Cable to announce it.
Forgemasters tried in 2011 to self finance the project but the Fukushima disaster curtailed confidence in the nuclear power industry.
Forgemasters are more stable than the Lib-Dems.

 

[redsquirrel]

Governments? I remember those.

They used to run countries before the banks and supra-nationals took charge!

I know this is a throw away comment but I think it's worth using as a jumping off point because it ties together number of the points under discussion.

There is sometimes an idea that during the post-war consensus you have the state being dominant over capital, while since the 70s the reverse has increasingly implied, indeed in this model it is often the withering of the state that has allowed neo-liberalism to occur. So under both the post-war consensus and under neo-liberalism you have the state vs capital, but in both cases this is false. In fact both arrangements required a partnership of the state and capital, and rather than a withering away of the state what we see is an increasing alignment, even synthesis, of capital with the state. Under the post-war consensus the state was integral in developing the skilled workforce required by capital at the time. Under neo-liberalism the state is still crucial to capital, see belboid's example of the bail out of the banks under Obama. That exploitation of labour is not in spite of the state but via the state.

The post-war consensus if not an ideal was at least a model for social-democracy, but that is no longer possible (at least IMO and no one has argued otherwise). Likewise, the Scandinavian countries were typically invoked as models by social-democrats, but they have not been isolated from neo-liberalism either. If the state is not an escape route and you are intent on limiting yourself to working through it, by insisting on legality (so no illegal council budgets, no exportation of banks) as some on this thread are, where do you go? I don't see anywhere else than remaining the managers of cuts to public services, to attacks on workers, etc.

 

[teqniq]

This is something I have, on occasion considered to be a distinct possibility.

‘I work in the civil service – and it will resist a Corbyn government’

 

[treelover]

Just about to post that, very concerning, any substance to it.

 

[alsoknownas]

This is something I have, on occasion considered to be a distinct possibility.

‘I work in the civil service – and it will resist a Corbyn government’

Basically 'A Very British Coup' stuff?