h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

For the record -

When I talk about either of the above, it can be taken as read that I am *not* talking about the average bod who thinks socialist ideas are quite good. I'm not talking about the Union Rep who wants to work towards a fair deal for his colleagues.

I'm talking about the so-called intelligentsia & elitists who occupy positions in the media, government, civil service, education system, quangoes and talking shops. The rent-a-mob who protest at the opening of a bag of crisps. The morally bankrupt who will ally themselves with their political antithesis if it makes for a bigger turnout at the demo of the day.

For the record, you should stop talking in broad strokes about "the left", "lefties" and "socialists", then. If you want to attack trade union corruption then specifically attack corrupt trade unions, not "the left" or "the trade union movement".

I agree, it puts me in a lot of deep holes

But how do you approach a left-wing policy without talking about left-wingers? The "Left" is indeed a broad church, but it is rooted in certain principles despite being the most factionalised of all political movements.

If I say extreme left-wingers, no one can really relate to the term. Is Tony Blair an extreme left winger? No, of course not. But he has implemented fundamentally left wing policies.

If there were a shorthand term to describe those I mean, I would use it. Any suggestions?

If there were a shorthand term to describe those I mean, I would use it. Any suggestions?


No. Use the longhand version, every time. I've decided that every time you mention the 'Left' you're referring to the Norwegian government. Sounds about as plausible as any other group.

point taken

What about the GalloSheriStones? Is that making it clear who I'm talking about?

Shit, no. Are they French?

For me, one of the things right-wingers (in terms of markets etc) completely misunderstand is, erm, the nature of markets. Free-marketeers generally advocate as little govt interference as possible. But they confuse unregulated markets with efficient markets, when they are certainly *not* the same thing. Given that perfectly competitive markets (what free-marketeers kid on they're talking about) are rarer than hens' teeth, I don't really trust any of them. Perfectly competitive markets *are* a good thing, and in some ways the closer we get to them the better. In some ways, of course, it isn't. Would you like to be on a day-to-day contract?

But all too often it's just a disguise to mask plain greed. Institutional shareholders don't give a shit whether towns or countries are ruined when they move in or out, they just want a decent return on their investment.

The distribution is pretty important too. High levels of inequality are linked with all sorts of crime, health differences etc, as you well know.

The market is a useful servant, but a terrible, fickle master, and must be regulated for the good of society. Anyone who says otherwise (re; must be regulated for the good of society) is either a crank or an idiot. The level of regulation is where the intelligent debate lies.

While we're talking position statements, here's the closest there is to mine - John Rawls. Rawls seeks to combine a liberal commitment to individual freedom and equality of opportunity with a broadly egalitarian-ish view of distribution of wealth, which seeks to harness the power of the incentives for the good of all.

A3136042

Here endeth the shameless plug.

I agree that we cannot rely on benevolent patrician-type employers, so yes there have to be controls. Minimum wages, terms of employment and suchlike have only been achieved with a lot of pain & tears by the Trades Union movement and we cannot contemplate discarding them. They are part of what makes British culture so worthwhile.

But there have been excesses on both sides. Exploitative bosses and strike-happy unions, (Timex).

Unions are invaluable when they are responsible. Thatcher may have used a big stick, but it is unarguable that the unions were crippling the country.

What I worry about chiefly is the insiduous spread of extreme socialist ideology as evidenced with immigration and the EU. As I said elsewhere, the alliance between Islamists and some socialist groups is equally worrying. Perhaps socialists should examine the history of the Iranian Revolution, when Islamists used socialists to help bring the revolution about then hanged them once they were in power.

That's a really interesting Guide Entry Otto

I've come across Rawls in passing, but never seen a decent synopsis.

I tend to look at society as winners and losers and also to take a global context. Any edge we take off UK industrial competitiveness could (and is) exploited by other countries looking after their own self-interest. Rawls' philosophy could only be imposed by a totalitarian regime with the power, resources and ability to do so. Obviously, a right wing totalitarian regime would never contemplate this and Communist regimes have amply demonstrated a propensity for crushing inertia. I think only a communist regime could enact this philosophy, but whether it would is entirely open to conjecture. The history book says no.

Patrician my ass. Free markets are ruthless, expoitative, and treat people like shit. Indonesian sweatshops are *exactly* what free markets are all about.

<>

The unions in Germany were more powerful than the ones here. Personally, *I* don't remember the 70s much, but destroying huge swathes of our industry (and the communities therein) is something that those militant German types managed to avoid. Because they weren't stupid enough to just leave it to the market.

<>

I think there's a smiley missing here. Choose from or .

<>

Personally, I don't really align myself with anyone. The enemy of my enemy is, in all likelihood, also a tosser.

If all companies are like that, how do you explain the "Top 100 companies to work for" lists? Many bosses take the view that a happy workforce is a productive workforce.

The rule of law, not of the market. The market is utterly amoral, and so, unfortunately, are some people, and most companies in the right circumstances. In richer, democratic countries, the worst excesses of the market are curbed by political power. Exploitation isn't always an option, just often enough.

I disagree. At the bottom end of the market and at the monstrous monopoly - yes, the ruthless model is possible. The average company realises that the expense of recruiting and training an employee is greater than the cost of providing a modicum of benefits. Where skilled labour is the premium, companies have to spend inordinate amounts over the minimum to attract and retain staff.

A smart boss realises the only resource he can truly influence by his actions is his staff.

Just to clarify, I was talking about an unrestricted free market, not the restricted, regulated markets we have in the west today. Sweatshops are the kind of place where it does exist though. Starvation wages for people without any alternatives. Kinda sounds like the industrial revolution, before the uniony-type stuff you praised earlier, eh?

One other thing. 'Externalities' are things like pollution, where a company does something whose cost is not included in a market. It's external to it, hence the name. Think of all the companies who pollute without paying for it, when they know there is a cost, but they also know that they can pass it on to someone else? Think how quickly a CEO would get sacked if he did decide to plough 15% of this year's profits into paying for something when he didn't have to. Obviously, there must be regulation, and again it's how much that's where the debate lies.

Simulpost there.

I don't think all firms will be monsters, just as not all people are. With the unrestricted market though, there'll always be someone who *will* go a bit further. And it will oftern pay them to go further. Or just ship the jobs off to India, and pay the staff 15% of the wage here and none of the benefits. (That's vaguely topical, cos I'm just going to phone the bank. It goes for all sorts of industries though.)

There are always good and bad things about something as powerful as free markets. As a socialist (for the purposes of this conversation) I'd say that there must be certain restrictions, pretty much all the time, for society to get the benefit.

But there has to be measurable benefits to any action. The polluting CEO may assess that he can utilise the PR from not polluting and thus turn non-pollution into a benefit. In a society that values non-pollution, most if not all CEOs will reach the same conclusion.

The simpler end to the same solution for control freaks is to introduce regulations, effectively making the benefit a lack of penalties.

This is what I mean by interventionism. When a market becomes overburdened with regulation, it stifles companies. When a company's costs have risen because of regulation but the end product price is inflexible, the only slack in the system is the staff - numbers and wages.

(note to self - in conversations requiring thought, allow 20 mins between posts to allow time for responses)

The polluting CEO won't pay a penny if it doesn't suit him. Usually, it won't. How many airlines have said, 'Oh, we'll close down because of global warming!' Or, more realistically, how many tobacco producers said 'Our products are killing you, we'll announce it on the front page of the Sun tomorrow.' Instead, we *still* get low-tar fags that people think are healthier than normal brands, and the same advertising in the third world that is banned here, after decades of denial in the first place. (This is a different type of externality, but the point is pretty much the same). Also, (non-coal) mining is pretty much illegal in many US states because of the environmental damage previous mines have caused. The companies there took the money and ran despite the regulations.

As for regulation, there's always a balance to be struck. Again, the point of debate. What you don't hear is that these pesky safety regulations are costing us money, and we'd rather have some workers dead and pay it out to our shareholders. And that happens with some of the biggest companies in the world, in the biggest economy in the world.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6100938.stm

Wealth creation is a good thing, probably. The public health measures in the 19th century did more to increase life expentancy than any medicine did, and was a direct result of all that wealth kicking about. Now though, I'm not so sure we need it. Capitalism seems to imply continuous growth in use of goods and services, and there's only so many resources we can use sustainably. PS, do greens annoy you more than reds?

The airline analogy demonstrates that consumers have not been won over by environmental arguments and thus the market does not encourage the airlines to decrease pollution.

The tobacco analogy is flawed in that you are talking about a product that is inherently lethal. But this was not always known. At one time it was thought to be beneficial. Where does the responsibility lie - to the tens of thousands of people employed producing a product which the market can ignore if it chooses, or to the regulators who would prefer to see all production stopped?

I don't understand the mining example, sorry. You are talking about an activity that was outlawed outright. Where is the benefit in a company repairing damage where there is no prospect of reward?

"Wealth creation is a good thing, probably."

Please excuse me. I need to go & change my trousers.

Every activity has to have benefit. In most societies, that benefit has to take the form of financial reward. Wealth enables development. Without Western development, they'd still be sleeping under the stars in Saudi.

No. I don't mind greens. Most greens are like myself and just hate to see waste. There are fruitcakes too, but that's life