Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Register Log in

Jeremy Corbyn.



Igzilla

Igzilla

Well-known member
Sep 27, 2012
1,644
Worthing
beorhthelm said:
why do you assume it should be? for that matter why assume that it is? you will find some in Brazil with higher standard of living to some in Germany and same apply across combinations. because of different cultures and political histories, the average across these country differ. yes inequity exists but why should individual effort and risk not be rewarded? why should a factory owner in Egypt with a lifetime spend all hours building up a business not see a greater reward than a worker content to clock off go home to his family each evening?

capitialism doesnt cause poverty, poverty is the default state for mankind, at least as we recognise it. without the company creating a factory we wouldnt have factory work with wages and disposable income, we have subsistance farming. yes, a company moves production abroad to increase profits by lowering wages, however in that country the wages offered are substantially better than anything else on offer and the workers raise their standard of living. so what you are against is globalisation, you want to keep all work here presumably and not share the wealth? or you want to pay a Spainard the same as a Brazilian or Japanese, regardless of how that effects thier living standard locally? i doubt it. the irony is that capitialism brought about the end of feudalism, as effort and endevour are rewarded and people can create their own wealth, but because not everyone is "equal" in capitialism its somehow bad, never mind the massive improvements to everyones living standards along the way.
Click to expand...

Erm, not it didn't. Feudalism ended during the 15th century as a combination of the 100 Years War and the Black Death wiped out the vast pool of labour that Feudalism required to function.
 




beorhthelm

beorhthelm

A. Virgo, Football Genius
Jul 21, 2003
35,302
London Irish said:
You are clearly reading the wrong bits of the financial press then. Many were really pissed off that the rest of Europe persuaded the Germans to cave in on giving more money.
Click to expand...

still focusing on the fact they got a bail out i see, with no concessions to note.
 


beorhthelm

beorhthelm

A. Virgo, Football Genius
Jul 21, 2003
35,302
Igzilla said:
Erm, not it didn't. Feudalism ended during the 15th century as a combination of the 100 Years War and the Black Death wiped out the vast pool of labour that Feudalism required to function.
Click to expand...

fair point, though that change in the social structure is the unpinning of capitalism by breaking the ties to the land, creating labour markets and incentives to improve productivity. the point is capitalism replaces feudal economics to the benefit of the workers (the landowner gains too, but not as much relatively), some seem to think capitalism is detrimental to workers without considering what came before (or still applies in developing nations).
 


Igzilla

Igzilla

Well-known member
Sep 27, 2012
1,644
Worthing
beorhthelm said:
fair point, though that change in the social structure is the unpinning of capitalism by breaking the ties to the land, creating labour markets and incentives to improve productivity. the point is capitalism replaces feudal economics to the benefit of the workers (the landowner gains too, but not as much relatively), some seem to think capitalism is detrimental to workers without considering what came before (or still applies in developing nations).
Click to expand...

Well, to a certain extent. The fall back position was Mercantilism, which had existed alongside Feudalism for a while. The breaking of Feudalism gave the ex-serfs the power to withhold their labour for higher wages, and escape being tied to the land by running off to the cities. Capitalism in its more modern sense didn't come of age until the late 18th century, when the restrictive trade practices of mercantilism were finally taken down. Ultimately, I agree with your point that capitalism doesn't create poverty. However, all systems seem to (in practice, rather than ideologically) create inequality. It's the relative size of the disparity that's of concern, and I think capitalism is vulnerable to pressure from the corporate sector to swing the balance away from the workers.
 
Last edited:


M

MattBackHome

Well-known member
Jul 7, 2003
11,723
Igzilla said:
Well, to a certain extent. The fall back position was Mercantilism, which had existed alongside Feudalism for a while. The breaking of Feudalism gave the ex-serfs the power to withhold their labour for higher wages, and escape being tied to the land by running off to the cities. Capitalism in its more modern sense didn't come of age until the late 18th century, when the restrictive trade practices of mercantilism were finally taken down. Ultimately, I agree with your point that capitalism doesn't create poverty. However, all systems seem to (in practice, rather than ideologically) create inequality. It's the relative size of the disparity that's of concern, and I think capitalism is vulnerable to pressure from the corporate sector to swing the balance away from the workers.
Click to expand...

Lovely stuff.
 




C

cunning fergus

Well-known member
Jan 18, 2009
4,745
Igzilla said:
Erm, not it didn't. Feudalism ended during the 15th century as a combination of the 100 Years War and the Black Death wiped out the vast pool of labour that Feudalism required to function.
Click to expand...


My own view is that the plague was much more important in ridding the UK and other parts of Europe of feudalism........but this was earlier than the 15century.

The consequences of the plague with the reduction of labour in agrarian societies where previously the landowners were able to exploit labour were profound and in the UK it created a new status for some peasants, such as free men and free labourers. In short the power transferred from the rich to the poor.

This happened in the 14th century and to address this new reality the landowners persuaded the King to introduce the first legislation to control workers pay, this time it was a MAXIMUM wage (based on a pre plague rate naturally). Other conditions were imposed on workers rights in the Statute of Labourers Act approx. 1380.

The genie was out the bottle though and workers sought to consolidate their new found power by setting up guilds that would limit the number workers to their "profession" which would prevent their pay rates being depressed by free labour.

The consequences of this act and the decision by the King to aggressively tax the free men and guilds men lead to the peasants revolt with Watt Tyler etc.

The lesson for us today from this event is......if you want to protect workers pay, you won't achieve it via a free labour market.
 








FREDBINNEY

FREDBINNEY

Banned
Dec 11, 2009
317
Bold Seagull said:
The NI Assembly was suspended from Oct '02 to May '07 with a break down in relations between parties and power returning to the Northern Ireland Office. That is the context McDonnell was referring to in order to maintain the peace process and get all parties back round the table. I'm not defending him or saying he's right, but that is the context.
Click to expand...
This says it far better than I ever could about Corbyn, particularly the part about Corbyn voting AGAINST the anglo irish agreement.

https://medium.com/@steve4good/jeremy-corbyn-s-inconvenient-truth-34d7f462d2a6
 


Bold Seagull

Bold Seagull

strong and stable with me, or...
Mar 18, 2010
29,789
Hove






pastafarian

pastafarian

Well-known member
Sep 4, 2011
11,902
Sussex
Corbyn cant attend the first Privy Council meeting,prior engagements

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...busy-to-be-sworn-in-to-the-Privy-Council.html

Telegraph probably being a little unfair here,the bloke has a prior meeting no biggie,not really fair to insinuate he is dodging swearing allegiance to the Queen when he is double booked
im sure he is more than willing to kneel before the queen and join the council when his schedule frees up.
 


beorhthelm

beorhthelm

A. Virgo, Football Genius
Jul 21, 2003
35,302
pastafarian said:
Corbyn cant attend the first Privy Council meeting,prior engagements
Click to expand...

if he doesnt want to do the Privy Council, he should just say so. i find it rather difficult to believe he's managed to fill his diary so far in advance to not be available for this. (it was pointed out to him he'll be expected to join weeks ago)
 


Herr Tubthumper

Herr Tubthumper

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 11, 2003
59,499
The Fatherland
beorhthelm said:
if he doesnt want to do the Privy Council, he should just say so. i find it rather difficult to believe he's managed to fill his diary so far in advance to not be available for this. (it was pointed out to him he'll be expected to join weeks ago)
Click to expand...

Saving the UK is clearly a very time consuming job!
 




Herr Tubthumper

Herr Tubthumper

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 11, 2003
59,499
The Fatherland


supaseagull

supaseagull

Well-known member
Feb 19, 2004
9,609
The United Kingdom of Mile Oak
beorhthelm said:
if he doesnt want to do the Privy Council, he should just say so. i find it rather difficult to believe he's managed to fill his diary so far in advance to not be available for this. (it was pointed out to him he'll be expected to join weeks ago)
Click to expand...

Oh dear another one taken in by a Torygraph story.

When will people learn that the establishment are frightened of Corbyn and the changes he will make to the system if he ever gets elected. Hence the smears and lies.

Do you actually know what the outdated Privy council does and why Corbyn is snubbing it?

Corbyn has already said that he would not give up prior engagements as a constituency MP so if he did then he would be called a hypocrite and also it's worth pointing out that if he did attend the Council then the Torygraph and the Mail would then criticise Corbyn for not keeping his promises and for turning his back on his ideals.

I mean, who would have thought it; an MP KEEPING their promises and then getting criticised when they do so??
 


B

BLOCK F

Well-known member
Feb 26, 2009
6,343
supaseagull said:
Oh dear another one taken in by a Torygraph story.

When will people learn that the establishment are frightened of Corbyn and the changes he will make to the system if he ever gets elected. Hence the smears and lies.

Do you actually know what the outdated Privy council does and why Corbyn is snubbing it?

Corbyn has already said that he would not give up prior engagements as a constituency MP so if he did then he would be called a hypocrite and also it's worth pointing out that if he did attend the Council then the Torygraph and the Mail would then criticise Corbyn for not keeping his promises and for turning his back on his ideals.

I mean, who would have thought it; an MP KEEPING their promises and then getting criticised when they do so??
Click to expand...

Thankfully, he won't get elected.
 


beorhthelm

beorhthelm

A. Virgo, Football Genius
Jul 21, 2003
35,302
supaseagull said:
Oh dear another one taken in by a Torygraph story.
Click to expand...

is it untrue then? whats the real story then? seems to have touched a nerve. if he cant adjust his diary for an important meeting with 4 weeks notice, i wonder how he'd be able to run the country if elected - the President of Brazil is visiting? sorry i have my surgery to attend. Cobra meeting? no, i have to attend a school fete in Islington this afternoon.
 




You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here