|
I wonder whether DJT showing up for the NATO summit on 3-4 Dec will impact an election held 8 days later bruising protests likely... and other people's populists are never popular
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2019 10:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 17:51 |
|
|
mila kunis posted:Should labour pull off a win in this election would Corbyn's agenda be hobbled by blairites? Peter Mandelson talking to John Humphrys on 11 May 1997, once upon a time, when left-wing MPs rebelling against the triumphant new government's manifesto was much feared: quote:MANDELSON: Well, we were elected with a very clear (Mandelson is there citing the highly machined vote at Conference) This did not work terribly well...
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2019 20:29
|
|
|
Chuka Umana posted:I mean I feel like they're somewhat right in the sense that this is really the best shot for radical leftists in Labour. There really isn't anyone to blame but Corbyn if Labour loses. Skwawk sounds like it wants to blame John McDonnell already...
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2019 20:31
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:I always love reminding/telling people that the first thing that Blair's Labour did was crush benefits for single mums. McDonnell is whipping a very similar pledge to not raise taxes (except on corporation rates and the top 5% income bracket). If this doesn't raise enough revenues, it will run into a problem... once in government, simply not reversing Tory cuts is no longer a, I think the term of art is magical money tree? We might be in the curious situation again where Labour is whipping a tighter line on taxes than the Tories, esp since Johnson seems to have located that tree in his backyard. Growing in a ditch, no doubt.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2019 20:53
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Not raising taxes doesn't mean you can't increase tax income, you just need to grow the taxable economy. By giving money to people who will spend it within that economy. after the car crash that was the Economic Advisory Committee back in 2015-2016, McDonnell also seems to become wary of trying to pitch new economics - it must have the OBR's stamp of approval and nothing less will suffice
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2019 21:05
|
|
|
worth reflecting whether you would consider Starmer or Thornberry or Rayner unacceptably too liberal; they're all positioning themselves in case Corbyn gets crushed at the polls in December and does the honourable thing none of these people have Corbyn's surviving-veteran-of-battles--when-Thatcher-was-PM stripes. Also, unlike political veterans who are still around four decades later, they have more viable rivals and more enemies made in relevant political questions rather than old, buried ones.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2019 21:37
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Scrapping the single parent benefit doesn't even make Sound Economic Sense™ though, because single parents on low incomes are probably the most likely group other than homeless people and working class pensioners to spend that money immediately in their local economy. They aren't going to hide it in the Caymans or speculate on land or invest it in the bonds of foreign governments, things that would render it economically inactive. all the departments were told to trim their sails - which most did by tweaking secondary legislation. But for the then-Department of Social Security, welfare policies were written in primary legislation and so it had to be legislated to match the budgetary estimates to retain the spending pledge. The estimates, themselves, were written by the outgoing government which had already announced and planned that cut prior to the election - it was not a new policy. So... but that's not really the point, which is rather that you know fully well that McDonnell, in tyool 2019, isn't going to be marking projections on the assumption of a 100% permanent income multiplier either
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2019 22:26
|
|
|
the specific problem with the EAC as a Serious Panel of Serious Left-Wing Economists was that they revolted and supported the 2016 post-Brexit-referendum shadow cabinet demand that Corbyn go it's the problem with trying to build momentum by assembling committees of influential thought leaders/sportsmen/celebrities to sing your praises, that siren song that lures desperate politicians - they were influential before you asked, and they'll be influential after; they don't really need to be politically obedient. As such they won't reliably use their influence to prop up someone else's. It's OK to have technical advisors but they need to be beholden to the leadership, not the other way around... it's an object lesson in why parties have think tanks that do the thinking in some way that does not accrue visibility and branding to them directly. For Corbyn's Labour today, in the wake of initial learning experiences, this is now IPPR and the New Economics Foundation (from which Meadway hails), both of which remain at a comfortable arm's length despite having a heavy influence on shadow Treasury policy and the GND. At the same time, the icky work of building credibility has to be done by the politician personally, hence McDonnell's tea offensive to the City - you can't farm it out, since ultimately it'll be you making the call on what goes into the budget speech
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2019 23:33
|
|
|
November ?? - probably week of Nov 11 - Clause V meeting, expect leaks. A likely path:quote:[Andrew Murray] has some reservations, however, about some of the radical policies bubbling up from Labour’s grassroots. Plans passed at the party’s conference last month included “integrating” public schools into the state system (under the slogan #AbolishEton), and implementing eye-wateringly ambitious carbon reduction targets. (Murray is Unite's chief of staff and Labour SpAD) November 18 is still the estimated final manifesto week I think? Nov 19 is the ITV Corbyn/Johnson debate Dec 3/4 is NATO summit Dec 12 is election
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2019 10:17
|
|
|
A leak: https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1190575174128689152 this will also give a likely flavour of the CON strategy at the leader debates, unless some novel incident happens between now and then 1. I wonder whether Great New Deal is a deliberate choice to undermine the many poonds already spent in messaging on a Green New Deal... itself an American slogan import, really, and can't be shifted easily 2. UC: note that Labour is not contesting the concept of a single benefit with a high rate of withdrawal, but is instead hoping to 1) iron out the rough edges, like the first payment delay 2) rename it. Hence the sneaky non-answer that implies that Labour does contest the concept. 3. You can taste the May-retropsective focus grouping - money for schools, more officers on streets (20,000 because Abbott proposes 10,000... my number is bigger politics) and hospitals for the NHS. No mention of the seven day NHS, academies, or other relatively tired CON concepts. CON is betting that LAB will not be able to credibly attack CON for blowing the budget despite CON blowing the budget, and cannot credibly argue that CON is spinning existing plans as new (despite CON &c) because LAB is pitching on radical change on a non-radical manifesto, and getting mired in the weeds of exactly how many hospitals one intends to build is the opposite of that 4. no mention of housing or childcare... someone here was working off a voter priority poll list and not a 2017 manifesto list
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2019 11:51
|
|
|
whether or not the local hospital charges fees on its damned car-parks or even just reserves it all, every single one, for staff, or steamrollers the whole thing for a dining area or a creche or a 12ft statue of William Beveridge, seems like an ideal question to devolve to the local trusts
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2019 11:59
|
|
|
There are actually guidelines for how NHS organizations should administer a transport policy. It does advise hospitals in cities/towns not to charge less than local parking. A quote repeated in all four of its case studies that gives you a flavour of the problem: quote:Car-park occupancy levels often reach and surpass 100%.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2019 17:35
|
|
|
gh0stpinballa posted:the objective reality of corbyn as a compromise candidate between the left and the middle... huh what's this committee of the left that has grudgingly lowered themselves into accepting Corbyn as a compromise candidate the power flows entirely the other way - Corbyn's group gets to decide exactly how left the party is and not an inch further. The attempts to keep Momentum, founded as an explicitly Corbyn campaign group vehicle, separate from Labour as a party all failed. The attempt to wrest Momentum from Lansman failed. Momentum, not the CLPD or some older group, decides how members will vote for motions to fail or succeed at Conference. Insofar as there are power struggles, it's exclusively between people who are Corbyn loyalists at this point. People who try to play the leftier-than-thou card a la Chris Williamson get what he got. there is no-one further left who is relevant. This is not Tony Benn operating in an era where the left control city councils across England and with a horde of influential MPs with experience in cabinet and backed up by loyal CLPs. Corbyn is the remaining representative of the left. Beyond him, there's just leafletting irrelevantly in the rain if the show is to keep going, those who fancy themselves inheritors of the left mantle are going to have to get used to defining radicalism downwards
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2019 19:48
|
|
|
that would give a revoke A50 position a credible voice on the stage...
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2019 19:58
|
|
|
gh0stpinballa posted:still stunned at that marina hyde column and how she literally described fighting nazism as "trampling over liberal democracy" ? I googled for it and found quote:Once leftwingers couldn’t eulogise Venezuela any more, their fandom transferred to Evo Morales in Bolivia. Forgive the spoilers, but if you’re keeping up with the show you’ll note that Evo has since trampled over liberal democracy, and Bolivia is this week mired in violent political protests amid claims he rigged the election. Morales being allergic to term limits is not a news internationally... nor it is unusual. of the 'pink tide' of the oughts, probably only Ricardo Lagos of Chile can be said to have unambiguously surrendered power at the end of his term in an uncontested way. This itself is a reflection of the Latin American love affair with democratic processes that yield ambiguous mandates, combined with middle-income-trap urban areas with statistics akin to Southern Europe, electing a government jointly with rural regions with development statistics more similar to subsaharan Africa. It's a permanently toxic stew.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2019 10:44
|
|
|
gh0stpinballa posted:yeah but evo won the election, and regardless of how clean or dirty the electoral process is there, the actual nazis opposed to him will always view him as illegitimate. because they are nazis. he's right to do a little trampling. It doesn't appear to be an unambiguous victory - Bolivia has a runoff system with a margin trigger, and it seems plausible that his opposition would win a runoff election from the look at the official results, since the opposition vote is fractured. Morales didn't even officially beat 50%+1, a far cry from his previous bitterly-fought third term election majority (why does Bolivia have a runoff? Because plurality systems with split votes themselves were prone to yielding contested mandates, with ensuing political violence and instability; hence since the 1970s there has been a general trend toward runoffs systems across Latin America. Winning an outright up-down vote is critical due to the endemic instability and deep distrust. See also: the French Third Republic... ) All free countries have clowns on the fringe and worse... I do come from a country myself where mainstream government stooges and/or heroic dissidents alike will even voice the most vile antisemitism without hesitation and absolutely without any irony (many Muslim countries are like that). But what matters is whether these forces are relevant. Do leaders listen to what they say? Can they force narrow votes in their favour? One can find many a gleeful Le Pen activist sporting a yellow vest over in Paris but this does not, itself, discredit the entire protest movement; and of course standards must be suitably lowered for countries with with limited press freedom and endemic political violence and corruption. Not all political dispute is sensibly interpreted in apocalyptic left-right terms - most countries are not Weimar Germany. The Bolivian problem has the mundane question of Morales's attempt to juggle indigenous constituencies (who traditionally practice slash-and-burn agriculture) with business constituencies (who export beef) has, instead of these maintaining a compromise, run headlong into environmental constituents: quote:Mr. Morales, who is running for a controversial fourth term, dismissed environmentalists’ concerns and marches in five cities as the “electoral nuisance of small groups.” One of his cabinet ministers, Juan Ramón Quintana, ruled out the declaration of a national disaster, claiming the fires were not uniform and did not affect enough people. Chiquitanos say the president intentionally let forests burn to ashes because the region holds little electoral value for him. and it is these, not Nazis, who appear to be the marginal vote that have cost Morales his previous 62% majority. As you point out, Nazis are going to be Nazis regardless. Beware of "little tramplings"...
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2019 13:02
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:This is bad for Jeremy Corbyn? In 1985, the anarchist James Scott wrote a careful and detailed analysis (and/or apologia) for the Islamic Party of Malaysia as a form of class struggle, which was totally not displaced anarchist indignation at the self-serving way the West was protesting the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (he is perhaps better known for his more successful Seeing like a State, which focuses on upland Indochina instead) This has nothing to do with Jeremy Corbyn, it's just funny. Guavanaut posted:Him letting cocaleros grow coca on the foothills of the Andes instead of hiding in wooded areas has saved an absolute ton of protected woodlands though, more than any juggling of other indigenous practices. Are you sure about that? The wonderful thing about the legality is that it allows the use of industrial processes to clear forests - the completely legal import, maintenance, and deployment of heavy machinery, with highways to remove spoil and and move cattle. This is orders of magnitude greater than stealthily cropping patches in the mountains far away from prying eyes. Even in Guatemala, which has much easier access to US trafficking routes, the majority of forest loss is driven by the sort of agricultural produce it is perfectly legal to consume - this is noted in the paper you cite.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2019 14:00
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Pretty sure, because even though you're right that the further north you go, the more likely it is that the deforestation is 'secondary deforestation', i.e. money laundering for traffickers, the first article also makes it clear that this is comparatively recent and due to US-led interdictions in the Caribbean, making the strong case that if Jamaica et al had made the same case as Morales, that the safety of foreign agencies could no longer be guaranteed (know what I mean guv) then this would not be happening. At its peak 38,000 hectares was devoted to coca farming in Bolivia. This includes illegal coca farming. For comparison, deforestation per year is measured in hundreds of thousands of hectares. Agriculture is measured in millions of hectares. When Bolivia wants to bet on the Chinese appetite for beef, it legislates to clear 4.5 million hectares more in ten years. I confess I am just baffled by your perspective on the relative scales of things here. The claim in the Davalos paper is that cocaleros are insignificant as a deforestation contributor. Legal agriculture - mechanized agriculture and cattle ranching - are the main drivers. Limits imposed by upland village collectives are irrelevant; this is good ole' enclosure a la Volume I, staffed heavily by internal migrants. The strategy pursued by Morales is not new. It is unsurprising that an administration prioritizing economic growth and self-sufficiency would pursue infrastructure fuelling export growth.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2019 15:24
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:The amount of cleared forest caused by secondary deforestation that has resulted directly from US led interdiction in the Caribbean is far larger than the amount of primary deforestation caused by the actual coca farming, but is still caused by it, it seems unfair to ignore those externalities. The choice of coca approach is irrelevant - even in the maximally Plan Dignidad period, Bolivian coca agriculture was never a significant component of agriculture. We are not talking sixty percent, thirty percent. The correct order of magnitude to hold in one's mind is less than 1%. It was an outsized factor in Bolivian society because, for obvious reasons, it is a stellar producer of hard currency when exported. Hence, the surplus product is fantastic and said product gets diverted to societal enrichment (and politics). It could sustain middle-class aspirations on labour/capital levels that would normally imply a subsistence quality of life. Even cash crops face fierce competition, tight margins, and the iron law of the Prebisch-Singer tendency of the relative price of primary products to fall, but coca is immune to being subject to heavy mechanization with high capital inputs at stake for self-evident reasons. But absolutely don't mistake it for environmental relevance. The orders of magnitude matter here. Even further north, consider this diagram, based on the paper you linked:  Secondary deforestation is not a force because of coca agriculture itself, iasmuch as because timber logging is a suitable front for money laundering. When there are easier mechanisms for money laundering - here that noted country of many Papers - narcotics promptly ceases to be a driver
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2019 16:29
|
|
that saves forests.
|
OwlFancier posted:They keys are almost certainly a standard bitting. You are right: https://www.securitysafetyproducts.co.uk/security/protective-covers-cages/thermostop-medium-thermostat-guard-extra-keys-pack-of-2.php. I like that there is a picture of the key itself. https://www.replacementkeys.co.uk/coleman-8025-key.html ronya fucked around with this message at 20:09 on Nov 3, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2019 20:06
|
|
|
marktheando posted:What is the deal with Milne? From the media I understand he's a Stalinist brexiteer who whispers in old king Corbyn's ear like wormtongue. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2009/nov/11/lessons-of-1989-new-alternative There's a weird obsession with GDR apologia in a certain strand of the UK left still... it's not enough for the new new left to fight neoliberalism and the new right, it must also refight and vindicate the wars of the old left against the old right It doesn't seem as popular as it used to be - Corbynmania has definitely erased it for the past several years - but it pops up every now and then, even here ITT
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2019 21:03
|
|
|
In many sports, compensation is a lottery - the best player in the world makes mad bank. The tenth best player might need a day job to pay the bills. The difference between their quantifiable performance might be miniscule. Given the time commitment necessary to compete in these sports, and the impossibility of knowing upfront that one is in fact going to be the mad-bank star, the lottery must pay out exceptionally well to justify the investment. This is what drives up top-end incomes - one is seeing a lottery pay out. But if one takes averages amongst professional players (take your pick in setting some plausible lower limit for determining a "serious" player), average expected compensation is much less. It is possible for most players to earn nothing, even after sinking tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars on full-time training, coaches, equipment, etc. - never mind the cost of giving up a stabler career. There isn't really a good way around this, since as Ms. A observed much of the top-end earnings is from demand for the superstar's performance. Due to the global nature of sport, national attempts to enforce compensation to lower-tier players can be evaded by simply the top-tier players competing on an individual basis elsewhere.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2019 07:40
|
|
|
surveys do show increased demand for flexible working hours and flexible locations by some, in the concrete sense of people being willing to accept massive cuts to pay to obtain these benefits when considering offers...quote:Figure 7 plots the choices for the flexible schedule job for survey respondents not in flexible-schedule jobs. There is very little demand in this group for flexible positions; only half of respondents are willing to take even a 2% pay cut for flexibility. Among individuals currently in positions with flexible scheduling, it is more nuanced. While the mean WTP is still quite low among this group (2.0%), there is a subset of workers that really value flexibility. The top 25% of workers in flexible jobs is willing to give up 16% of their pay for the option to make their own schedule. This is consistent with sorting in the labor market, where workers with the highest WTP for flexible scheduling are in flexible-schedule jobs. This may also be driven by the endowment effect, with workers valuing the ability to make their own schedules because they have it... esp in terms of collective bargaining, bargaining for flextime at the table does come at the expense of workers who might prefer to accept fixed hours and fixed locations instead, and focus on other forms of compensation. One longstanding tension here is that surveys that don't quantify the compensating differential (the pay cut someone is willing to accept for a benefit) tend to vastly overstate demand for flextime, which leads trade unions to prioritize it and then be slightly baffled when uptake is low it is the case that flextime might be more realistic at the bargaining table than other forms of compensation - many workplaces genuinely do not necessarily benefit from having 100% attendance at nine am sharp
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2019 09:03
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:I think sometimes there is a bit of confusion with the term "flexible working", ronya is taking it to to mean "guaranteed hours but flexibility over when you work", while sometimes "flexible working" is used as a dogwhistle for insecure gig economy poo poo employee-side flexibility is the conventional meaning of "flexible working hours" in formal/academic contexts (e.g.) employer-side flexibility is generally called on-call work or "variable working hours", but there is no particular guarantee of consistent usage in the context of Moore's article that HDS quotes, it probably has the conventional meaning in mind - employee-side flexible hours and and the employee's discretion in remote work for "normal" days. Even so, it's worth being aware that this does come at a cost to employees who do not value these aspects of a workplace. It is piecework pay for knowledge workers, since a workplace that invests in flexible work hours necessarily finds other ways to assess employee contributions besides being present at a worksite to take orders from management, and these metrics are then applied to workers who do not take up flextime anyway - in English, for example, a project team might be expected to meet certain project milestones on time but retain discretion over how/when they show up to do so; the milestones are then set assuming a broadly 40 hour week. The employee is then taking on the managerial duty of managing themselves to meet those milestones, and this would remain true whether or not one leverages those flexible hours. This would be annoying if what one instead expects from work is to perform pre-specified tasks for pre-specified hours in a day, and have management entirely own the responsibility for making sure those tasks translate into revenues.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2019 10:10
|
|
|
Jose posted:Banning cash machine charges is a new one to me https://labour.org.uk/press/rebecca-long-bailey-responds-pwcs-high-streets-report/ Tijuana Bibliophile posted:"business taxes are killing high streets" is a p weird take It's an online-vs-brick&mortar thing - online deliveries don't pay local business rates
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2019 10:16
|
|
|
peanut- posted:I can't find a link to it now but I definitely read a study that showed for any decrease in business rates, 100% of the cost saving ends up being passed on to commercial landlords. Which makes logical sense, rent & rates are combined fixed premises costs and if the tax element falls the other one will raise. you are correct on the basic economics of it - if it is inelastic, all the incidence falls on the landlord in the long run. Much of the property value is location value, which is largely inelastic. As you point out, the rent just adjusts to the rate. (this is why the Adam Smith Institute, not normally an opponent of tax cuts, opposed Osborne's cut to business rates) the problem being posed here is "what if it is not inelastic though". Specifically - empty shops. If the occupancy rate is not 100% then it can no longer be assumed the incidence falls wholly on the landlord. This is the headline factor that is relevant to voters who see boarded-up shop windows. Say what you will about the endless lettings agents, but if they disappear to zoopla it's not an improvement to high street either. The online-vs-brick&mortar decision shifts the incidence to the tenant - property values that require owner investment. Rates are on property values per se, not land value, so there is still some elasticity on infrastructure. About a third of commercial businesses own their own property, so it matters for local business groups deciding whether or not to invest in some high street regeneration programme - rates don't affect companies equally - businesses occupying single small properties enjoy a progressive relief. The higher the rate, the more valuable the relief; business rates hence favour small, single-property businesses that are intensely vulnerable to economic shocks rather than e.g. regional chains of several properties. This fragility drives continual turnover which drives more frequent void periods.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2019 11:50
|
|
|
Braggart posted:Socialise the entertainment industries. If you make mad bank, your mad bank helps to subsidise those who haven't made it yet, or never will. It's worth supporting people to try, because some of them might become good at it this is a live issue in sport economics - many governments want successful national representatives and want to be able to fling money at the problem but socialising the cost is difficult. Fundamentally people from a hundred $INSERT_HOME_TOWN_HEREs do not turn out to see a hundred top players from $INSERT_HOME_TOWN_HEREs, they want to see the top player from the top, singular. This is what drives the extreme returns. Conversely, governments want successful national representatives, not even more massive numbers of also-rans. And of course many of the successful will complain loudly and at length about any limitations on their outlier success. Here, The Beatles, a year after being awarded OBEs: quote:Let me tell you how it will be The Who, five years after exploding into mainstream success: quote:Away for the weekend &c. All involved fled to lower-tax jurisdictions.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2019 12:27
|
|
|
Braggart posted:You make good points, so I would suggest that it would be easier and more practical to simply provide everyone with what they need, while taxing them according to their ability to pay. It would even cover ridiculous edge cases caused by dogmatic adherence to formulae! "Ability to pay" is where all tax avoidance schemes live... an, ahem, dogmatic adherence to this formula would not be able to distinguish between a going concern with high operating costs and hence no ability to pay, vs a tax shelter vehicle that exists to accumulate capital gains But I don't think that's what you really have in mind, and it's worth pointing out that the intuition leads to strange places. The Soviet Union itself, of course, merely hoped for to-each-according-to-his-contribution; it never dared to aim so high as from-each-according-to-his-ability.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2019 13:11
|
|
|
quote:Instead, party members overwhelmingly supported a motion backed by Mr Corbyn which commits the party to a second referendum but will see it decide on its campaigning position after the election. Arguably the head-to-head format of the debates on Nov 19 benefit LDEM and SNP (as long as the latter two carefully continue to maintain how enthusiastic they would be to participate in debates to which they won't be invited - they will certainly turn down smaller events organized just for the minor parties, unless the forum is confirmed to be a friendly one). The reason is simple: Johnson is certain to bang on about his Great New Deal. Corbyn was a tossup previously but it looks like he is confirming that the Clause V meeting will not be allowed to openly contradict Conference, which confirms that the party will go to the polls with "referendum on a credible Leave option or no Brexit". With Johnson and Corbyn on a national stage pitching their Leave proposals, that would fuel furious remainers for the week following the debate
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2019 13:51
|
|
|
Braggart posted:That is the problem with formulae, and a human looking at the situation might have a different take on it. But then we encounter the problem of human bias. Formulae, of course, are not biased except towards those who write them. Lenin, State and Revolution, Ch5: quote:Accounting and control--that is mainly what is needed for the "smooth working", for the proper functioning, of the first phase of communist society. All citizens are transformed into hired employees of the state, which consists of the armed workers. All citizens becomes employees and workers of a single countrywide state “syndicate”. All that is required is that they should work equally, do their proper share of work, and get equal pay; the accounting and control necessary for this have been simplified by capitalism to the utmost and reduced to the extraordinarily simple operations--which any literate person can perform--of supervising and recording, knowledge of the four rules of arithmetic, and issuing appropriate receipts. Let's say that he was a touch optimistic...
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2019 13:52
|
|
|
The LDEM position has been unconditional unilateral revocation of A50 since mid September, shortly after the Benn Act ruling out No Deal passed. Previously it was a second referendum between Remain and No Deal. The SNP position has been unconditional unilateral revocation of A50 as well since mid April, shortly after the Euro elections. Previously it was to revoke A50 if the alternative is No Deal. The Labour position has been to negotiate its own credible Leave option since Conference in late September, and then subject it to a referendum in which the party's position will be decided at an unspecified later date following a Labour majority at a general election. Prior to that, between the Euros and Conference its position was also a credible Leave option, but naturally did not specify a particular Brexit deal since the Tories were not yet with one would survive the Commons. The party also did not commit to the position it would support at such a referendum. Prior to the Euros its position was that a second referendum was one of many options to stop a Tory Brexit, but that a general election would be preferred. There are some further prior-prior-priors here - a customs union vs the customs union, four tests, six tests, etc. - but those are receding ever deeper into the trashcan of history
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2019 14:43
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Sure, but I think the trick is getting people to think a layer back from that. That politics doesn't start and stop at people who advertise themselves as politicians. which ltv though the naive versions are idiotic any coherent versions are colossally complex - single system, dual system, what? in the uk analytical marxism tends to hold sway and it is prone to jettisoning LTV and TRPF entirely
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2019 18:49
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:The idea that your boss decides what you earn, literally cannot pay you what your labour is worth, and all of this happens just because they have money is not remotely idiotic, and is in fact 100% true. the last time someone posted the twitter idiot version of not grasping the concept of cost of capital, you remarked it was baby's first LTV now I am wondering whether you actually think this is the LTV which is ... uh... disappointing, I guess
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2019 19:06
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:It's the important part of LTV and given that whatever your understanding is produced... you... I'm unconvinced of its utility. it's not - in a Marxist context, capital is still an input into the means of production, capital goods are produced, and capital goods are paid for. The organic composition of capital under communism is not zero. It doesn't make any sense in a Marxist framework The absolutely minimal version of the LTV can hinge on the concept of capital as dead labour and to argue that the dead labour is stolen in some long original-sin misappropriation, but that still acknowledges that constant capital comes from somewhere
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2019 19:17
|
|
|
his fashion in socks is a challenge to bercow's choice in ties
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2019 19:24
|
|
|
it is is foundational to marxism that exploitation is from the surplus value, defined as the difference between the use value and exchange value of labour inputs exploitation is not the wedge between total and organic capital, that doesn't make any sense. There is no scenario where the use-value of labour is equal to the use-value of output, because for Marx one must add the use-value of constant capital to obtain the use-value of output, and for Marx it is the cumulation of constant capital available to society that drives long-run economic growth. So screaming that there is a difference between output and wages is a misrepresentation. It is there in Marx too: it is the constant capital. The actual LTV is about the two components that make up the exchange-value of labour (wages, i.e., use-value plus exploitation), which the difference between output and exchange-value tells us exactly nothing about ronya fucked around with this message at 19:52 on Nov 4, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2019 19:46
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:It tells you to get loving mad your boss is screwing you you loving nerd. that's not the putting the LTV in school curricula then is it
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2019 19:54
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:It tells you to get loving mad your boss is screwing you you loving nerd. worth noting that there is a lay understanding of the econ where the exploitation is derived from the constant capital, and in some societies it is indeed taught in schools, and these are a nontrivial fraction of the global population. In Islamic economics, one locates the original sin of capitalism in usury (i.e., loans at interest) and failing to properly share risk. Equity is acceptable; debt is not (or at least debt without some fanciful mechanisms that theoretically share the risk). Here one arrives at the conclusion that a society of small shopkeepers or cooperatives (or private equity, as in family held equity), where everyone is their own residual claimant, is the exploitation-free economic system. this is not the LTV. It is not Marxism. It does not lead toward support for Marxism. I think it does matter that one is at least minimally correct, even if the intention is bald propaganda. ronya fucked around with this message at 20:20 on Nov 4, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2019 20:12
|
|
|
a pipe smoking dog posted:I'm getting very frustrated about people saying labours Brexit policy isn't clear, because the counterpoint is the Lib Dems and no one seems to know if they are now planning to revoke without a recurring or if they still support a referendum, and if they do what there terms of their referendum would be. Have they actually firmly set out their policy anywhere? quote:If there is a General Election before a People’s Vote, then we’re offering voters an easy way to stop Brexit; elect a Liberal Democrat majority government, which will revoke Article 50. https://www.libdems.org.uk/archive-europe-policy Labour's is also straightforward, in the sense that nobody successfully held the Conservatives to account on their myriad red lines either: quote:A Labour government will immediately legislate for a final say vote once elected. ... https://labour.org.uk/page/labour-brexit-plan/ (what has potentially changed since as recently as April earlier this year that in Conference in September, Conference voted to abandon "freedom of movement will end" since it passed "Labour will include in the manifesto pledges to... Campaign for free movement, equality and rights for migrants". Conference is not actually empowered to make that decision - we will find out what the party stance is at the GE when the Clause V meeting concludes. The commitment to ending freedom of movement was previously the biggest sticking point in the Labour plan to have "a" new customs union. )
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2019 18:17
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 17:51 |
|
|
Labour notably does not say what it will do if it does not win a majority (this is strategically sensible for a major party; I'm sure most here can appreciate that LDEM sounds a little ridiculous whenever it tries to duck the question, but LAB can maintain its silence on that question, even if the polls suggest a hung parliament). Of course, a rabid single-issuer might not find that silence sufficient either. That's single-issuers for you.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2019 18:24
|
|