Make big companies pay tax? A joke.

[JimC]

Wrong. Choosing a "level of Socialism" is exactly part of the Marxist dialectic, and once chosen, the progression of any socialist society to bankruptcy, chaos, anarchy and death is absolutely inevitable. This is because the fundamental precept of Socialism is that the individual "owes" something to the collective, and the collective gets to determine what the individual owes and what it will take to fulfill that presumptive obligation.

This is the root of this argument, that it is beyond the wit of man to artificially (if you like) implement a level of socialism or social democracy as it will "inevitably" lead to disaster. I have slightly more faith in humanity. The last century appear to have shown it is quite popular and successful, and does not in fact lead to disaster.

And that explains the disaster going on in Greece, Spain, Portugal and which will spread to the rest of the EU how, exactly?

Nothing to do with the EU, it's the Euro currency you are talking about. Trying to shoehorn countries with economies which are too different into one currency isnt a great idea. But the problems in Greece went much further than than, structurally, and that was made worse by being in the Euro when they shouldnt have been (shouldnt have been allowed) and countries such as Spain are now feeling the effects of that Euro destabilisation. Spain werent in ANY trouble when the financial crash happened, they had low debt.

None of this is about marxism or socialism.

True, although I would argue that there are aspects of Seth's critique which are correct, as least as far as Greece goes. They had an out-of control system of excessive "entitlement", with government employees feather-bedded to an absurd extent. Coupled with systemic corruption, they shot themselves in the foot...

[Cormac]

Wrong. Choosing a "level of Socialism" is exactly part of the Marxist dialectic, and once chosen, the progression of any socialist society to bankruptcy, chaos, anarchy and death is absolutely inevitable. This is because the fundamental precept of Socialism is that the individual "owes" something to the collective, and the collective gets to determine what the individual owes and what it will take to fulfill that presumptive obligation.

This is the root of this argument, that it is beyond the wit of man to artificially (if you like) implement a level of socialism or social democracy as it will "inevitably" lead to disaster. I have slightly more faith in humanity. The last century appear to have shown it is quite popular and successful, and does not in fact lead to disaster.

And that explains the disaster going on in Greece, Spain, Portugal and which will spread to the rest of the EU how, exactly?

Nothing to do with the EU, it's the Euro currency you are talking about. Trying to shoehorn countries with economies which are too different into one currency isnt a great idea. But the problems in Greece went much further than than, structurally, and that was made worse by being in the Euro when they shouldnt have been (shouldnt have been allowed) and countries such as Spain are now feeling the effects of that Euro destabilisation. Spain werent in ANY trouble when the financial crash happened, they had low debt.

None of this is about marxism or socialism.

True, although I would argue that there are aspects of Seth's critique which are correct, as least as far as Greece goes. They had an out-of control system of excessive "entitlement", with government employees feather-bedded to an absurd extent. Coupled with systemic corruption, they shot themselves in the foot...

They didn't do it on their own though. Don't forget that since about 2003, Germany has been busy using the EU institutions to export it's economic difficulties around the Union.

Wankers.

[JimC]

Cormac wrote:

They didn't do it on their own though. Don't forget that since about 2003, Germany has been busy using the EU institutions to export it's economic difficulties around the Union.

Wankers.

I'm sure you're right about Germany, but that does not absolve Greece for its decades of sloth...

Mind you, I gather that they took a major hit in terms on tourism when they joined the Euro zone - they were no longer an attractive place to holiday in terms of price...

[Cormac]

Cormac wrote:

They didn't do it on their own though. Don't forget that since about 2003, Germany has been busy using the EU institutions to export it's economic difficulties around the Union.

Wankers.

I'm sure you're right about Germany, but that does not absolve Greece for its decades of sloth...

Mind you, I gather that they took a major hit in terms on tourism when they joined the Euro zone - they were no longer an attractive place to holiday in terms of price...

Yes - and the Euro is problematic for other reasons too - primarily that they failed to give the ECB the obligation to act as the lender of last resort along with the power to set the interest rate. This means that they made it possible for Germany and France to export their problems with no need to accept the costs of doing so.

Agreed that Greece has been an economic problem due to internal corruption and low levels of tax compliance.

The other aspect of this is that Germany never paid any reparations to Greece for the war crimes they committed. German economists estimate that this would be worth at least 90 billion euro. Naturally, this is considered a significant underestimate. As far as I am concerned, Germany should now simply hand this cash over. (By forgiving debt probably).

[sabell]

I think that people are being disingenuous in their interaction with Seth on his core point - which is that the concept of taking money from wealthier people and "transferring" it to poorer people iris a Marxist concept.

This seems to be a reasonable assertion to me, unless it can be pointed out that there are other societal roots for this concept.

It certainly seems to me to be a Marxist concept.

The concept, as described, certainly predates Marx by some measure, the Elizabethan Poor Law of 1601 may have established the first tax specifically for poor relief.

[Cormac]

I think that people are being disingenuous in their interaction with Seth on his core point - which is that the concept of taking money from wealthier people and "transferring" it to poorer people iris a Marxist concept.

This seems to be a reasonable assertion to me, unless it can be pointed out that there are other societal roots for this concept.

It certainly seems to me to be a Marxist concept.

The concept, as described, certainly predates Marx by some measure, the Elizabethan Poor Law of 1601 may have established the first tax specifically for poor relief.

The levellers and various peasant revolts might have more relevance. There have always been poor laws, but they don't have the concept of "redistribution".

[JimC]

I think that people are being disingenuous in their interaction with Seth on his core point - which is that the concept of taking money from wealthier people and "transferring" it to poorer people iris a Marxist concept.

This seems to be a reasonable assertion to me, unless it can be pointed out that there are other societal roots for this concept.

It certainly seems to me to be a Marxist concept.

The concept, as described, certainly predates Marx by some measure, the Elizabethan Poor Law of 1601 may have established the first tax specifically for poor relief.

The levellers and various peasant revolts might have more relevance. There have always been poor laws, but they don't have the concept of "redistribution".

Maybe not stated, but logically implied, surely?
If you're taxing people, then they have money, and then some of that finds it's way to the poor... Sounds like redistribution to me, if only on a small scale...

[pErvinalia]

I think this just highlights the class rhetoric that some people believe in. Some people obviously view "redistribution" not as an attempt to help the poor, but as an attempt to punish the rich. I think that's paranoia.

[Kristie]

I think this just highlights the class rhetoric that some people believe in. Some people obviously view "redistribution" not as an attempt to help the poor, but as an attempt to punish the rich. I think that's paranoia.

Agreed

[JimC]

Eat the rich!

[Kristie]

Eat the rich!

Only the ones that have recently bathed
!

[SteveB]

You look rich, Kristie.

[Kristie]

You look rich, Kristie.

Depends on your definition of rich. But, I think in this case we can use whichever one will get me eaten.

[pErvinalia]

[laklak]

I think this just highlights the class rhetoric that some people believe in. Some people obviously view "redistribution" not as an attempt to help the poor, but as an attempt to punish the rich. I think that's paranoia.

I think it's simple jealousy. But I don't care, I've got mine and you can't have it. Neener neener neener.