Off Topic Political Debate

There is not doubt the developed colonial countries have much to answer for in relation to the troubles in the countries of the so called third world.... and the Brits are no better really than any.....

For example we exported opium from India to China to create an addiction in China and get the tea for growing in India. You may have heard of the 'opium wars' .

 

I dislike Trump so much because he is the epitome of a bad capitalist. He does make his wealth through taking quality of life from others, much of his dealings have been underhand and his ability to build bankrupt rescue companies built on other peoples finance beggars belief. Add in that he is a real racist who does not respect other cultures and as far as I can see as much of a danger to humanity as Adolf Hitler or ISIS.
Goods and services are built from 4 elements, ideas, labour, systems and machines. These work best in a capitalist environment where the idea is to increase ones personal capital. Companies are not monsters and behind every company are people whether that be shareholders, government or individuals (people also in the form of paid workforce who often hold shares in their employer). Companies are far better than governments for running business where politicians inevitibly from whatever side they are from use their position in government to forward their personal wealth whether this be through their own families companies or abuse of controlled functions for advantage. My only experience of the nations you mention was Libya where the oil companies were a fuly owned and controlled mechanism of the state which was a socialist system....... We all know the story in Nigeria which is fundamentally tribal and again the problem is corruption not the corporations who have bent to work in that environment rather than creating it.

 

No, companies are not monsters.....but institutions can become so large that they bring the 'monster' out of people. When a firm becomes too large then it often has the effect of distancing people from the consequences of their decisions. This is why 'small is beautiful' is often better for the environment. I would much rather that the firm close to my house is either a family owned small firm or a workers cooperative, because, in both cases, they are more likely to respect my environment (because they share it). I also go against the idea that a 'small state' is enviable - firstly because the state should maintain the resources to turn the wishes of the electorate into effect (if corporations are richer than the state then you have no democracy left). The second reason is that a country where everything is privatized is not in a position to react to a national emergency or environmental catastrophe - look at how long the Americans took to react to the New Orleans floodings. A more centralized economy would have reacted far quicker. As you have said Libya's oil was in state ownership......Tamoil I believe, part of which was the Holborn Europa Raffinerie in Hamburg. Is there any evidence to suggest that this was inefficiently run as a result of being state owned ? Regarding Donald Trump......why is he considered a racist for wanting a stop to illegal Mexicans crossing the border ? Yet others on here who want to keep 6,000 homeless souls rotting in Calais are apparently 'not racists' - where is the logic here ?

 

Do I understand you? Big companies are bad - small. local are better. But a "small state" is not enviable so we should go to the bureaucratized super state EU?
I think you will find there was not the will in the American Government to help New Orleans - perhaps for racist reasons - not for any privatization reason. America can react to emergencies when there is a will in Government. Privatisation does not enter the field. Libya - pass. If you think Trump is not a homophobic,sexist, racist then I question every judgement you make.

 

Lenny you have misunsderstood IMO

As i understand it. Cologne is questioning how we stereotype people as racist or not depending on what is considered socially normative.. and the implicit dual standards

 

Firstly Leo, I did not say anything whatsoever about the EU. in my text. For me it stands to reason that if the private sector has more resources than the state, then it can hold the state to ransom and that is not democracy. Why do you always speak about the state as being something remote......something 'alien' to the people. The 'state' means you and me.......do not privatize it........take it back. Of course Donald Trump is a bigotted racist, I didn't say anything else.....but, I have read things on these boards which could just as easily have been written by him, written by people who claim not to be racist, and that was the point I was making.

 

I know you did not mention the EU - I did though. You said you go against the idea that a small state is enviable so I questioned - that is all - questioned whether you preferred a big superstate and used the EU as the obvious example as we belong in it. Your logic implied big was better in states and small in companies - I do not follow that logic.
Bizarre argument that if the private sector has more resources that the state it can hold the state to ransom - examples please. Democracy is about people being able to vote in free and fair elections. Please explain how your argument follows from one to the other. (If the state has more resources than the private sector would you argue it can hold that to ransom - weird!!)
Where did I say anything ("always" apparently) about the state being remote? Do not knock down your own straw dogs. If by state you do not mean government you should make that clear. I called the EU bureaucratic - as many people do? Do you think ir is not?
On Trump you suggested he was considered a bigot because of his policy on Mexicans. I think most people think he is a bigot for many many reasons and cannot think why any decent person would defend him.

 

Is that your understanding - it is not mine.

 

I just did a French assessment paper last night which was all about how globalisation has threatened the nation state and protectionism... e.g 'made in france'.

The ulitimate position of the free marketeers is the by passing completely of nations as they get in the way of market forces type economies.

I think it is pretty much accepted that this is the case now.

Big is beautiful for the multinationals as that equals more profits.

I think I told you the example of Limca the 10 cents cola in India drunk by the millions... bought out by coke.... and then virtually decomissioned .. .so everyone buys coke as 100 cents a bottle.... awful

 

Yorkie's understanding of this is the right one Leo. I am talking about double standards here. There are many British people (and not only members of Ukip, EDL or the BNP) who are using similar rhetoric to Trump eg. over Moslems in general, refugees, migrants from Eastern Europe, Gypsies etc. all without being accused of racism - why, because they are British ? An example you are looking for is in a situation where one or two firms have turnovers which have become either larger than the GDP of the country which houses them or who have such a strong position that they can influence government policy through lobbyism - in this case they are circumventing the normal rules of democracy. It is not hard to find examples of countries in this state (Denmark and Maersk ?) of the 100 richest entities in this World well over 50 are corporations and the minority are countries. With this background democracy is threatened because all of our democratic forms are based on the nation state. Don't get me wrong here Leo - I am no fan of big states like the USA, Russia, the UK. Germany etc. because smaller states tend to have more real democracy and political participation - like Finland, Austria etc. What I am saying is that whatever the size of the country it should have control over the lions share of resources within it.

 

A major question here is what do we value people and communities .... or multi-national corporations...

 

It is all very good having ideals which can be expressed on a thread with this name, but politics are actually about making laws that are for the benefit of the country that a government has been elected to do.

 

..........................

do carry on Frenchie

 

Thank you I will. Too many glasses of something red has disconnected my fingers from my brain.

 

Ah that explains things for me too........ It is clearly obvious that I became disconbubalted many years ago...

 

That is the rub and also i think explains why when in power elected Governments struggle to do what they say they will.

 

I will continue. SeaFrance was a company owned 100% by SNCF the French railway company, that in turn is owned by the French government. So it was a nationalized industry. It employed roughly 2,000 people, until 2012 when a French court ruled that it was bankrupt. In 2008 it lost £20M and until it was declared bankrupt it had been losing £3M every month. As the government had already kept it going with subsidies for four years a French court ruled that it would be illegal to waste anymore tax payers money on a company that had only made a profit in one year of it's entire existence.

The administrators tried to sell off what little assets they had, namely four ferries. Three companies put in bids, and the highest was from EuroTunnel, a joint French English company. Due to the share of cross channel business they already had, questions were put to the competition authorities in the UK. In an attempt to get round this they leased the two ferries that were to be used for passengers to a French workers cooperative of about a thousand former SeaFrance workers. This ploy was seen through, so eventually the ferries were sold off to DFDS Seaways who agreed to employ 850 of the workers. This was not good enough for the workers who occupied the vessels and destroyed all of the safety equipment on them so that the vessels could not be used.

This is what happened in a shortened version. Here we have actual events involving nationalized industries, private companies, multi national companies, workers cooperatives, and laws on company failures made to protect the man in the street. Everything has become very complex in today's world, and to try and find a simple answer is not possible in my opinion. Governments should not prop up companies that cannot show they are providing something that people want. SeaFrance couldn't show this. Cooperatives are stepping out of their league when they try to run multi million £ companies, (Brittany Ferries also prove this). Local government has pumped millions into the ferry port at Boulogne which now stands empty because the companies that used it were losing money and pulled out before they became bankrupt.

Forget the ideals of what you would like to see, and start to deal with some of the problems as described above.

I need a drink after that lot.

 

Apparently, the Jersey Government is considering joining the EU if the UK does pull out. It makes me think that we do get something from them by association as we are part of the British Isles.

 

Well I still think Donald Trump is considered racist for far more utterances than Mexican immigrants. However I cannot understand how you can state that people with views like UKIP, EDL and BNP are not accused of racism. People who think like them are often accused of racism. The specific Mexican issue is more akin to dislike of economic migration which many people condemn without making racist remarks.

I do not fear for democracy as you do. Democracy involves so much more than this one issue so even if I conceded (which I don't) that this issue negates democracy I could not accept your sweeping argument. Nation states clearly struggle on taxation of multi-national companies. However that is where democratic multi-national political action is needed

 

It is quite a slur on the 40% of the French electorate in some regions to suggest they are racists because they voted for the FN. Life is more complicated than that.