»

[Tubthumper]

If I read it correctly, he's not hailing it a success.

[Pierre Von Mondragon]

Em yes, I am against water privitisation, once you read through my florid prose, although I fear I have misused the term farrago (a motley assortment of things, apparently) I've only ever seen it used in the perjorative, ie assortment of bad things). Anyway, a farce it is!

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Pierre Von Mondragon

Although history has shown that people will frequently vote to curtail their personal civil freedoms, when sufficiently fearmongered into doing so.

Selective quoting, I got that shit.

I quoted your whole post verbatim. Nothing selective about it.

Originally Posted by Pierre Von Mondragon

Merely asserting things without any supporting evidence is meaningless,

Right...

Originally Posted by Pierre Von Mondragon

Although history has shown that people will frequently vote to curtail their personal civil freedoms, when sufficiently fearmongered into doing so.

...so it's a case of what's good for the goose is good for the gander, then?

Originally Posted by Pierre Von Mondragon

as the continued decrying of the 70s proves.

If ever a decade needed decrying, it was the 70's. Care to mention any positive aspects of UK economic policy in the period before Thatcher?

Originally Posted by Pierre Von Mondragon

Although on some economic indices show that the UK in the late 70s was less profitable than some other equivalent economies,

Some? SOME? Is there a sober economic analysis of the UK's finances in the 70's in existence that shows the economic circumstances in a good light?

Originally Posted by Pierre Von Mondragon

this does not take into account other socio-economic factors in which the UK has declined since that period eg. social cohesiveness, and communitarian spirit,

Absolute nonsense. Britain's communities were already in a state of flux due to the after-effects of World War II, the need to replace rotting slums and tenements with new buildings, the aspirations of a growing population, and yes, the inability of governments at that time to provide basic services such as a reliable supply of energy. Most of the "community spirit", as romanticised by intransigent socialists and backward-looking traditionalists had already been sucked out of the country long before Thatcher came to power.

Originally Posted by Pierre Von Mondragon

before the Friedman induced meltdown of the manufacturing sector corroded the lives and prospects of previously productive citizens,

"Previously productive"-you mean, when they weren't on strike?

Originally Posted by Pierre Von Mondragon

and introducing endemic depression into their communities. All things that, historically, the scions of privilege have not given a shit about, due to being greedy, and just bad humans. (no smiley)

Like I said, most of these "communities" had ceased to exist or were living on borrowed time long before the ideas of Mighty Milt were brought to bear on the country. As for the "scions of privilege"..it's the 21st century, the class war is over. If we're to have a true meritocracy, we can't penalise the successful and those who create wealth and opportunities for others.

Originally Posted by Pierre Von Mondragon

As for Nationalisation, well the trains used to provide a service to passengers, and were safer, Electricity was never so expensive as when shareholders have to make profit and Water, we've escaped the worst up here, but analysis of satisfaction levels with the privatised Water Companys show that it is a farrago that should end now.

Yes, the trains used to provide a service and were safer. Then they were nationalised and the government of the day implemented Dr. Beeching's reforms and scrapped most of the network, without providing adequate investment to replace the lost services. This was a state of affairs that continued up until the re-privatisation of the service, which, despite its initial problems, is now providing faster, cleaner and safer trains throughout the land, and the service will continue to improve as long as the businesses who run them are allowed to run them profitably and effectively.

Would electricity have been cheaper to the consumer, in real terms, if the government continued to use taxpayers money to subsidise the means of production and supply? I think not. The introduction of competition in the energy market led to much-needed upgrades to the infrastructure of energy supply, as well as keeping prices at a competitively low rate.

As for water, again, much private money was spent improving an extremely dilapidated and, in some cases dangerous infrastructure, and some of these costs were (rightly) passed on to individual consumers at the point of delivery. Why is it that paying for services seems so abhorrent to socialists? Nothing in this world is free, someone somewhere has to pay for it, and it is better that the individual consumer makes their own choice about the level of service they require, rather than having their needs dictated to them by central government.

Originally Posted by Pierre Von Mondragon

Now tell me how I'm wrong again, the baseless assertions didn't get through last time.

You're wrong. Again and again and again. If you seriously think the 70s were a golden age of economic and social prosperity, then I can only commiserate with you on living in the wrong era. By all means, stand for election on a "Bring Back the 70s" platform, remind everyone of the glories of the three day week, hyperinflation, mass unemployment and the trade union dominance. I hope you can afford the deposit, 'cos you ain't going to get it back.

[Pierre Von Mondragon]

I don't even have to go to the effort of multi-quoting, the phrase 'mighty Milt' says it all, the world you thought you had a handle on is crumbling, but hey, hang on to those old 'certainties' if you must, you can't eat them though. The 70's weren't a Golden Age, as no era is, thats reductionist. Of course it is in the interests of the right to declare class war over, and for a while it was, because the Right were winning, but it is never over, and the current cataclysm is the harbinger of reassesment, not retrenchment. The thing is, we on the left had the scales of illusion ripped from our eyes decades ago, leaving us to face to to the the fact of our impotence in the face of the corporatisation of society. You lot, on the other hand, still live in the fantasy that after a few months of turmoil, things will go back to the way they were. Not happening.

OK, I'll deal with one.
Care to mention any positive aspects of UK economic policy in the period before Thatcher?
yes, it was more re-distributive, ergo fairer.

We're only at the tip of the iceberg now, and things could go many ways, the greedy will try to retrench, if we (collectively) are stupid, we'll let them.

And finally, 'Bring back the 70's', I was six when I realised that you can never go back, its why you have to put thought into the means of going forward, rather than relying on dogmatics, left or right.*

*Although Marx was correct when he talked about the deification of the market by its advocates, the substitute faith was Monetarism, now in abeyance, thank you Jebus.

I'm off to act like a Rational Economic Unit, cos thats what Milt Fuckyouihaveenough said I am

[Pierre Von Mondragon]

Actually, I've just thought of a better angle, *reaches for big book of football phone-in cliches*
Were you actually at the 70's caller, eh, eh!?, coz I was there, and not only was the economy in fine fettle ('brilliant' is the technical term) but it was sunny, EVERY DAY, and there was always jelly and ice cream for tea. *makes snide aside to Richard Gordon "that last one was a heidcase", hangs up*

[Afro Droid]

Originally Posted by Pierre Von Mondragon

We're only at the tip of the iceberg now, and things could go many ways, the greedy will try to retrench, if we (collectively) are stupid, we'll let them.

We already are letting them! The same CEOs are gonna be running the same banks and making the same greedy irresponsible decisions, there'll be recovery undoubtedly over time, but in another 20-25 years we'll almost certainly be in the same position. I want to know, now that I've inadvertantly become a shareholder of my bank, how I can influence policy?

I'm with Flash, they should have let the whole thing collapse. The status quo doesn't work, time for a new paradigm...

As an upside - the news has never been more entertainly full of hyperbolic statements of impending doom. There is nothing more satisfying than watching rich c*nts lose everything and blubbing about it. Makes me glad that I don't have a pot to piss in...

[Neil]

Well, that's Iceland fucked then. An example of maybe what would (and may still) happen to the likes of the US and UK if no bail-outs had been made? Who knows.

Still, at least my planned trip to Reykvik next year should be considerably cheaper. They'll probably be on the Euro by then though.

[Jeanette]

Originally Posted by Neil

Well, that's Iceland fucked then. An example of maybe what would (and may still) happen to the likes of the US and UK if no bail-outs had been made? Who knows.

Still, at least my planned trip to Reykvik next year should be considerably cheaper. They'll probably be on the Euro by then though.

And... some Scottish Councils won't be in a much better predicament.

BBC NEWS | Scotland | North East/N Isles | £120m scheme 'funded by Iceland'

Apparently Perth Council will have lost in the region of £1m.

[Pierre Von Mondragon]

Well thats Kerry Fitshername fucked then.

[Scorge]

I had quite a useful pot of cash in a Kaupthing Edge account. Not anymore though. Out!

Currently tossing up the idea of bond purchases.

not