suburbanmusings

In response to:Holding The Line

Tue, 03 Nov 2009 01:39:55 +0100

Great article, continue doing and making great posts.

Pups for Sale

In response to:Holding The Line

Fri, 23 Oct 2009 16:39:35 +0200

Thanks Melrose, although I've just been hit with a dose of flu or something, which couldn't really have come at a more inconvenient time.

I think the consensus is that Afghans vote along tribal lines and, as a member of the majority Pashtun tribe, Karzai is likely to be re-elected, with or without vote-rigging. A national unity Govt would probably be preferrable but Karzai and Abudallah appear to hate each other. I doubt it will change things overnight and numerous problems remain, but at least it's a step in the right direction.

In response to:Local Politics, Local Minds

Fri, 23 Oct 2009 06:58:01 +0200

replica handbags

In response to:Debating The Hijab

Fri, 23 Oct 2009 06:56:04 +0200

replica handbags

In response to:Holding The Line

Thu, 22 Oct 2009 15:55:44 +0200

What sort of result is to be hoped for? Do you think a coalition is likely?

Best wishes for the move.

Melrose

In response to:Chasing Victory, Avoiding Defeat

Wed, 07 Oct 2009 22:00:08 +0200

Thanks, although I think Afghanistan does need a strong Govt, I know what you mean. Having seen a few programmes about Afghanistan it's clear that many villages in rural areas have never been connected to roads, electricty or water supplies and the Govt doesn't seem to have much relevance to local people. Local elders seem to want to be left alone to farm their land and don't want or need much from the Govt, leaving these areas to cultural norms or the Taliban means abandoning the women who live there, but unfortunately it is impossible to change culture overnight (or over 8 years).

In response to:Chasing Victory, Avoiding Defeat

Wed, 07 Oct 2009 09:50:28 +0200

Thanks for this. Very thorough and thought-provoking.

Personally, I wonder if Afghanistan does need so much central government. It might be better off as a looser entity. For everybody else the important thing is to seal up the frontiers so that the Taliban can't use it as a base to foment terrorism in other countries.

Although, I agree (reluctantly) that we have to respect Afghanistan's sovereignty, I think that's a different matter from underwriting the Karzai regime or giving them any kind of 'get out of gaol' card.

In response to:Debating The Hijab

Tue, 06 Oct 2009 20:31:48 +0200

Hijab is a great thing i think.

In response to:Free Trade Is The Fairest Trade

Mon, 28 Sep 2009 09:30:01 +0200

Capitalism? What Capitalism?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e2/GM_-_Countries_by_Economic_Freedom_Index.png

In response to:The Nature of the Market

Mon, 28 Sep 2009 09:11:43 +0200

Or, that yes indeed it's because it wasn't left to the markets. The ironic thing being that banking is pretty much the most regulated industry out there.

I'll send you along to the bailout reader...

http://mises.org/story/3128

In response to:Local Politics, Local Minds

Mon, 28 Sep 2009 09:07:17 +0200

I would say that it's somewhat true that it can be the local busybodys, but a problem I find is that people are restricted by parties in what decisions or questions they make, as it reflects upon the party nationally.

What we need are a bunch on indys going in and causing havok...

In response to:The Nature of the Market

Wed, 23 Sep 2009 11:19:16 +0200

http://useducationloan.blogsome.com/
http://paycheckpaydayloans.blogsome.com/
http://uspaydayloans.livejournal.com/
http://cashadvancedirect.blogsome.com/
http://collegestudentloans.blogsome.com/

In response to:The Price Of Progress

Wed, 09 Sep 2009 10:39:08 +0200

You can really save a lot of your time and energy for finding the lender of loans for the unemployed, is one of the quickest loans which approved with in few hours. I applied some times ago and now I got it same day and I must want to share that websites which are providing easy and fast approval service here it is: http://www.businessloansforunemployed.com/

In response to:Local Politics, Local Minds

Mon, 07 Sep 2009 23:23:41 +0200

Ok I'll admit I was generalising, and I guess there is no shortage of national politicians with more ambition than common sense.

Right in the historic Georgian part of the town where I work there is an enormous grey beomouth of a concrete builidng, which looks like the secret police building from 1984 or some Soviet-era city. In my home town there's a depressingly bland cinema complex which replaced a fetching Victorian school a few years ago, then there's the ridiculuous brutalist multi-story car park which squats over the town centre like a giant wart, the list goes on unfortunately . . .

In response to:Local Politics, Local Minds

Mon, 07 Sep 2009 20:35:12 +0200

Well I'm sure you're right in part but it may just be that people's life situation doesn't permit them to go national or they may just be running out of years. the ugliest building in our town is the police station (circa 1980, I reckon). It's a monstrosity on stilts built with grey bricks which is right next to the relief road built about ten years later. Doesn't show any signs of falling down unfortunately. In fact, thinking about it, they might just as well have built the police station on the dual carriageway around the town as the police mainly seem to travel by car - getting out of the town must slow them down a lot.

In response to:Local Politics, Local Minds

Mon, 07 Sep 2009 18:06:12 +0200

In response to:Perfection Is Impossible

Fri, 21 Aug 2009 20:40:32 +0200

Ha we are back on topic now. We must test theories against the evidence we can see and, although we can't achieve a paradise, we can look at making things better.

With regard to low-wage workers in the West, I would say that the idea applies to anyone with a basic skill, trade or a profession and most ordinary workers have switched jobs at least once. Most people aren't on minimum wage, the vast majority earn something between 22-30k which isn't bad at all.

Not everyone stays in a low-paid job forever, people can work their way up through hard work. Unfortunately the country is producing too many people who don't have academic or vocational qualifications; without a skill or a trade it is hard for anyone to earn more money. We need to look at improving education and training for school leavers - easier said then done.

Money isn't always the most important thing in life, provided you have enough to survive reasonably comfortably, even people on benefits can have widescreen tvs. The minimum wage still allows people to afford some of life's luxuries, however, more could be done; I don't think the very poorest should pay income tax for example. Milton Friedman suggested a negative income tax where the state gave money to the low paid, but its never been properly tried out by a government.

Wages are also kept low by immigrants who may send the money back to help their families. For immigrants low-paid jobs can act as a stepping stone, and the children of many immigrant groups often go on to become middle class professionals. Low paid workers can also be needed to help prevent inflation, which damages everyone's standard of living.

With regard to sweat shops - most Western companies do have strict rules on working conditions in third world countries and working for a foreign company can be very sought after in a poor region. After all sweat shops are bad for a company's image and that can be bad for sales.

Of course some companies are exploitative and can and do run sweat shops. In countries like Pakistan, for example, the economies either never industrialised or have totally collapsed, for a variety of reasons. In these countries there is chronic unemployment and poverty, and no competition from other employers. Even a job in a sweat shop may mean earning enough to feed a family. Any such exploitation should be condemned and stopped and foreign companies should pay a fair wage to local employees. However foreign investment can bring much need employment and money to developing countries. What is the actual data on the number of sweatshops run by developed economy companies, what is the data on all of the factories run by Western firms? Has anyone done an objective study on the issue? What do local people think? What is a fair wage in a country with a low cost of living? What if foreign firms pulled out of all the developing countries, where would their jobs and investment come from? I don't think its a black and white issue.

In response to:Perfection Is Impossible

Fri, 21 Aug 2009 19:18:08 +0200

so what happens with low paid, manual work in the West, how do companies seek to reecruit them? I think by the fact that there are so many people working at minimum wage levels, your theory only applies to upper-scale work. Most jobs are paid roughly the same and there is always more demand than jobs available. Might relate more to CEOs and bankers I am thinking. Also,does your theory apply to children working in sweat shops?

In response to:Perfection Is Impossible

Fri, 21 Aug 2009 17:28:04 +0200

Ok this is definitely off-topic now. Regardless of how it happened, the workers with the best rights are, without fail, in free, capitalist societies. Labour rights are an intrinsic part of capitalism, as it gives labour the freedom and strength to improve its position either collectively, through unions; or individually, by moving to an employer who offers better pay/conditions/a promotion. By offering better pay and conditions, a company can poach the most skilled/best workers from a rival company. In this way a worker gets better pay and conditions, a company gets a more productive workforce and a consumer gets a cheaper/better product.

Stalin’s centrally planned economy caused the deaths of tens of millions of workers, the brutal repression of tens of millions of others and wasted a huge amount of resources. The USSR still couldn’t compete with the wealth and freedoms enjoyed by Western workers. That’s why they had to build a wall to stop the proletariat escaping from the workers’ paradise to the capitalist West.

Whether or not the empire fuelled Britain’s industrial revolution, the philosophy of free-market economics is totally opposed to imperialism, as it relies on human freedom to work. Capitalism does not rely on imperialism and the most successful economies have succeeded without imperialism or after loosing their empires, i.e. Denmark, Sweden, Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, Germany, Ireland, etc etc.

In response to:Perfection Is Impossible

Fri, 21 Aug 2009 16:42:45 +0200

Thanks for your replies. I do understand the role of worker participation in politics has been fundamental, but this is again down to trade unions and their role in the development in social democratic parties in Europe. Although in the UK, with the House of Lords still in operation, the actual power of workers is questionable. The connection of business with political parties has been detrimental to the position of the average worker, and although it's right that many people are not part of a trade union, they are still a powerful block in the protection and advancement of workers rights. Without them I would question whether the average man would have working hours, holidays and a minimum wage. As for the development of economies from free trade, the Soviet Union proved that centrally planned economies can rapidly advance some of the least developed nations, although obviously, freedoms were curtailed in this process, just as they were during the industrial revolution in the UK and Germany. Plus, you seem to forget the connection between the expoitation of colonies in the development of industry in western Europe, and it is plainly obvious that this is still happening to this day.

In response to:Perfection Is Impossible

Fri, 21 Aug 2009 16:27:03 +0200

Thanks for your comment.

This is going way off-topic but hey,

Yes Trade Unions can have an important role to play especially in developing economies. But Trade Unions are only free to exist in capitalist economies and the very wealth that has accrued to ordinary workers has been made possible by the wealth generation of private enterprise. Most workers choose not to belong to a trade union and sometimes Trade Unions can cause problems, for example by protecting their own members at the expense of poorer or less skilled workers, sometimes they can block reform or protect bad practice to the long term detriment of workers at a company. But generally they are an important part of a free economy and a free society.

The particular aspects of employee regulations are political decisions for democracies to take, better workers' rights can provide job security but on the downside it can cause higher unemployment and reduced growth due to high labour costs and lower flexibility. Less regulation can allow faster growth and a more innovative economy, but the downside is increased insecurity for workers. Both are versions of capitalism and are really for each state to decide upon through democracy.

Capitalism doesn’t rely on poverty in the Third World, and Dependency Theory has been debunked. Wealth isn't a zero sum game, it depends on productivity and consumption. Newly developed countries have achieved economic progress precisely by attracting investment by Western companies. Indeed if the entire world was developed then companies would have more markets to sell their products to. Making the leap from pre-industrial to industrial society is tough and we have our great grandparents to thank that we made the leap a hundred years and more ago.

Exploitative practices are to be condemned and that is in the tradition of the writings of Adam Smith and Milton Friedman, who believed in helping the poorest people in society. Plus free trade is aimed at removing trade barriers setup by rich countries to undercut Third World producers. Pressure needs to be used to stop corporations exploiting workers in non-democratic countries when it occurs, but I think the general consensus is that private enterprise also has an important role to play in developing economies.

Plus I don’t know about capitalism being greed pure and simple. There are greedy poor people and greedy rich people, there are greedy communists and greedy capitalists. For example, by creating Microsoft products Bill Gates has produced a huge amount of wealth that would not have otherwise existed as well as a product that has helped billions. Furthermore he is quietly giving all his money away through his charitable trust in Africa.

Regards

In response to:Perfection Is Impossible

Fri, 21 Aug 2009 16:06:21 +0200

Firstly, I think the role of the trade unions needs unpacking a bit more. Certainly, they played an important role but I think this must be down to fostering workers'education and involvement in politics as much as campaigning directly for better pay.

Secondly, want of the plain economic kind is a moral problem and a pretty permanent one at that. I don't believe that economic systems are the key here, ultimately, though the will to keep on improving them counts for something.

In response to:Perfection Is Impossible

Fri, 21 Aug 2009 15:40:14 +0200

I have to say that it is only because of strong trade unions that the people of these countries have got themselves out of poverty. If you look at the treatment of labour until the rise of strong trade union and socialist movements, it was on par to slave labour. Capitalism is based on the principles of greed, it is still a system in which profit is the over-riding concern. If it is possible for a business to fire thousands of employees at one time and moving their factory/plant/office to somewhere there is cheaper labour, then they have no scruples of doing this, as we have seen countless times. In the most 'free market' economies we see employee rights being much lower than those with more stringent regulation of labour and government intervention (e.g. compare the rights of workers in Sweden to the UK) and there are strong socialist parties.

Once again, i just want to highlight the fact that if it's wasn't for a strong mobilised workforce in western nations, I have absolutely no doubt that workers would be tied to slave-like working conditions. The free market also profits from the plight and suffering of those in the third world. Cheap, well, slave labour, is recruited to make most consumer items, farmers are virtually forced to sell their produce cheap to chain food-outlets and any attempt of the people to become unionsed are more often than not quashed by either firing them and recruiting workers, or as we have seen in Africa and South America, gunned down by corporate-sponsored paramilitaries. It may be ok for you, and others like you, living comfortable lifestyles, and those in the third world who profit from using their own people as slave labour, but there is no denying the fact that capitalism feeds off the oppression of others. It's greed pure and simple, it's just not so blindingly obvious for those living the west as it is no longer as visual.

In response to:Perfection Is Impossible

Fri, 21 Aug 2009 15:09:17 +0200

Thanks for your comments.

Yes the Tiger economies of S.E. Asia experienced a financial crisis in the 1990s. Centrally planned North Korea didn’t. It experienced catastrophic famine and the death of millions of its citizens. As I said no system is perfect.

100 years ago British citizens had many problems; however, they were far better off than the ancestors had been for the last 10,000 years of human history. They lived in brick houses with glass windows, they had money for food and fuel and for the first time in history ordinary workers had access to consumer goods. Ordinary people also gained increasing access to political and working rights. This was made possible by the increased productivity caused by the industrial revolution. It is little exaggeration to say that the average worker in developed countries enjoys a better standard of living than a medieval king, and will almost certainly live longer.

Britain, America, Hong Kong, Germany, France, Chile, Iceland, Sweden, Canada – they all have slightly different economies, they have all been affected by the Credit Crunch in different ways – however, all are in essence free market economies, in which wealth is generated by private enterprise.

I was brought up in a middle class suburb in which was built in the 1950s, virtually every house was owned by people who had been born working class. The last 25 years have seen the biggest reduction in poverty in history; 400 million people have been lifted out of poverty in China since Deng Xiaoping lifted the restrictions on private enterprise. I don't know if that is what you would call 'drip-down' but I think it represents human progress.

The point I made in the blog was that no system is perfect and no system can deliver utopia, that is why it should be constantly challenged, evaluated and reformed, based on the evidence available to us. There is plenty of scope for reforming capitalism and adapting it to the circumstances of each country, however I have not seen evidence that there yet exists a system, which does not have private enterprise at its core, and provides the same level of progress and economic growth for all sectors of society, rich or poor. Maybe a system will be developed in the future and the point of my blog was that no-one should be blinded by ideology; but to paraphrase Churchill, capitalism is the worst system, apart from everything elese we’ve tried.

Regards.

In response to:Perfection Is Impossible

Fri, 21 Aug 2009 14:27:42 +0200

Do you realise that the biggest promoters of this "free-market" model that you speak so highly of also have suffered from massive economic crashes? Ever heard of the South Asian Market crash of 1997? And surely you must also realise that two of the "free-est" markets in the world have suffered more than any other in the current economic crisis; Britain and America that is. Why is that? Because they reverted back to classical economics and the old "drip-down" theory perhaps? Or is it all just coincidence? Maybe you should look into the problems classical economics caused in Britain over 100 years ago. Rampant poverty, pollution, disease, prostitution, destitution, premature death and above all, greed.

As Adam Smith wrote "...but from their regard to their own self-interest." And that is why classical economics will always fail because all the capital and wealth gets creamed off at the top, and only the bare minimum "drips-down." Do I need proof? Haha.

In response to:Queen And Country

Sat, 15 Aug 2009 10:51:04 +0200

I think we can both agree that Big Government is a bad idea, but I can surely criticise wasteful Govt and the Royal Family at the same time.

The precise cost of chinooks aside I think it's clear that the Queen has no more right to Crown Estate payments than anyone else, either it is her private property or it isn't, she can't have her cake and eat it.

I agree that the Prince's Trust does good work but it's clearly untrue to suggest that such charities wouldn't exist without the monarchy. If Britain became a republic the charity could continue to run as normal, its success is not predicated on the existence of a monarchy.

Most European countries have successfully evolved into republics. Britain, Holland, and the Scandanavian countries work because they are stable, democratic, capitalist societies, their success has nothing to do with their monarchies. Israel and India, at one time two hugely unstable countries, have combined the Westminster system with a presidency successfully, as has Ireland.

I was baptised as a Roman Catholic, as Catholics are banned from marrying royals or becoming head of state, I do not consider that the Queen chooses to represent me. I would be perfectly happy if the Queen was elected head of state, it is possible to be elected whilst remaining above party politics, as we saw with the recent Speaker's election (as well as the Irish presidency). There are also any other number of alternative systems that we could use. If we really need to have a head of state then we should be free to choose and if the Queen is so well qualified, no doubt she would promptly be elected. I would suggest a salary of say, £100k would be fair.

Having a head of state chosen at birth is medieval, and supplying her extensive family with millions of pounds of taxpayers' money is downright wrong.

Unfortunately the monarchy is largely irrelevant and no party is going to expend political capital in reforming it. So I think we can both agree that the monarchy is likely to remain in place indefinitely.

In response to:Queen And Country

Thu, 13 Aug 2009 22:42:54 +0200

Sorry - a couple of typos above, but I think my meaning is clear.

In response to:Queen And Country

Thu, 13 Aug 2009 22:40:55 +0200

Coming back with a vigorous reply.

>Thanks for your comment, I apologise as I have evidently misunderstood the role of the Crown Estate. But for me this is good news.

Glad about that :-)

>As the assets of the Crown Estate are not the private property of the Queen, it surely means she has no more right to live in the various royal palaces, which I presume are owned by the Crown Estate, then any other British citizen.

I imagine that that is incuded in the agreement, and that the same argument would apply to Downing Street - which is also the property of the nation.

>How about they are opened up as tourist attractions full time, generating more money for the treasury?
They are all open already, and it would never be full time anyway. Consider the opening dates of National Trust properties - comparable, for example, to Sandringham.

I'm not sure

>I should also imagine it means that the extensive 'royal' art collection does not belong to the Queen, in which case it would be nice for as much of it as possible to put on display for the benefit of the nation.

Again, I think parts are already on display. Most museums only display a tiny fraction of their stock. The British Museum only displays

>If the Queen does not own any part of the Crown Estate why on earth should she be entitled to any surplus revenue? Its no more hers than it is mine. £7.9 million could probably buy a few chinooks for Afghanistan, or help for maimed veterans.

A typical Chinook costs £15-£30m, or if you are the MoD you get special adaptations then cock-it-up so that 7 cost the original price plus about £400m to fix.

The costs involved in supporting the Royal Family are completely piffling compared to amounts wasted elsewhere, or to the huge benefits. How, for example, do you value the benefit of the 60,000 -> 80,000 small businesses started by people under 30 supported by the Princes Trust. That would not have been possible under a different setup. Or the huge value to the country of having a Head of State who is genuinely above party politics and can represent the nation rather than the Government?

Compare £7.9m with a £400m government advertising budget, or the sums spent on MP Expenses,or the £10-12bn on the NHS computer project.

>Unfortunately I couldn't find the a link for the original sotry but I do remeber this recent story from the same paper, which would suggest that the Crown Estate doesn't always have the taxpayers' best interests at heart.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6638086.ece

In my view that is mainly a Murdoch hatchet job.

>In any event, irrespective of financial issues, an unelected head of state, is, in my opinion, an insulting relic from a bygone age.

I think it works brilliantly, and basically doesn't need fixing. There's a whole swathe of European Democracies with similar setups, and they all work too, including the Nordics. Having a constitutional monarchy does not make it undemocratic.

If you are really want to make our constitutional setup better, then you should be working on things like Prime Ministerial patronage - which is where most of the unaccountable political powers the monarch exercised centuries ago have gone - and having those exercised in a more accountable manner. Look on the place where power exists, rather than where it is no longer focused; the Monarchy is the wrong target. Get onto that later, but fix the undemocratic and abused stuff first.

In response to:Queen And Country

Tue, 11 Aug 2009 21:41:32 +0200

Thanks for your comment, I apologise as I have evidently misunderstood the role of the Crown Estate. But for me this is good news. As the assets of the Crown Estate are not the private property of the Queen, it surely means she has no more right to live in the various royal palaces, which I presume are owned by the Crown Estate, then any other British citizen. How about they are opened up as tourist attractions full time, generating more money for the treasury?

I should also imagine it means that the extensive 'royal' art collection does not belong to the Queen, in which case it would be nice for as much of it as possible to put on display for the benefit of the nation.

If the Queen does not own any part of the Crown Estate why on earth should she be entitled to any surplus revenue? Its no more hers than it is mine. £7.9 million could probably buy a few chinooks for Afghanistan, or help for maimed veterans.

Unfortunately I couldn't find the a link for the original sotry but I do remeber this recent story from the same paper, which would suggest that the Crown Estate doesn't always have the taxpayers' best interests at heart.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6638086.ece

In any event, irrespective of financial issues, an unelected head of state, is, in my opinion, an insulting relic from a bygone age.

In response to:Queen And Country

Mon, 10 Aug 2009 13:02:02 +0200

BTW it would have been useful to have a link back to the Sunday Times piece, so I can evaluate your source.

Rgds