Corbyn did win, what's next?

[WildCat]

What does the article say?

And what is so objectionable about supporting Marxism? It may be wrong or not, but it is a philosophical position. Is it the same thing as supporting Stalin's slave labour camps? Does the article suggest that Corbyn supports slave labour camps?

Ah, baby steps. We just went from complete denial that he supports Marxism to "what's so bad about Marxism?".

Now tell us, when has Marxism ever been successful?

 

[Ambrosia]

the genocidal internationally recognized terrorist group Hamas.

that depends on your point of view.

If foreigners came to my country, threw me out of my house, stole my land, and forced me to live on some kind of 'reservation' I'd be really pissed off as well.

I might well go so far as to take up arms.



Of course in the US of A Israels actions are reported on a little differently than the rest of the world.

Probably something to do with Americas rich history of killing indigenous peoples and enslaving people with different coloured skin, or something.

 

[Ziggurat]

That may be experience in how mistaken it is, but it's tenets are not "bad" in the sense that those of the Nazis were bad. It may be that Marx's theories were unable to achieve his goals, but these goals were not objectionable.

Yes, they were objectionable. Perhaps not to the same extent as Nazism, but they still violated the freedom and dignity of the individual, even in their idealized, unrealized form.

Furthermore, at this point in history one cannot assert with a straight face that Marxism merely failed to achieve its goals. In all of its incarnations, it leads to despotism and slaughter, without fail. One may excuse the ignorance of some of its original proponents, but to advocate for Marxism now is to advocate for the horrors that it actually produces.

 

[MikeG]

Deficit hysteria regarding UK at the moment is, well, quite irrational.

No, it really isn't. Borrowing may be (currently) cheap, but it certainly isn't painless. Having a balanced budget would be much better than, say, having the debt to GDP ratio of Greece, for instance.......wouldn't you say?

 

[WildCat]

that depends on your point of view.

If foreigners came to my country, threw me out of my house, stole my land, and forced me to live on some kind of 'reservation' I'd be really pissed off as well.

I might well go so far as to take up arms.

Is that what happened?

Of course in the US of A Israels actions are reported on a little differently than the rest of the world.

Probably something to do with Americas rich history of killing indigenous peoples and enslaving people with different coloured skin, or something.

Ah yes, and no other country ever did that! Europeans, especially, would never have introduced black slavery into North America. And certainly would never have colonized half the world and claimed it as their own leaving a complete mess in the aftermath when it all collapsed!

That's a mighty high horse you're riding there!

What does any of this have to do with Corbyn openly supporting those who advocate genocide?

 

[Craig B]

Ah, baby steps. We just went from complete denial that he supports Marxism to "what's so bad about Marxism?".

Now tell us, when has Marxism ever been successful?

Even if that were true, does it make it "bad"?

And that doesn't even indicate that Corbyn's ideas are explicitly Marxist. As I have argued before, all of them may be found in the practice of modern democratic societies.

You might call the UK health service "socialist"; and you might call a Stalin slave labour camp "socialist". That makes them the same thing?

 

[Ziggurat]

Even if that were true, does it make it "bad"?

Maybe that doesn't, but the millions of corpses left in its wake sure does.

And that doesn't even indicate that Corbyn's ideas are explicitly Marxist.

Ah yes, the No True Marxist argument. Except instead of using it to defend Marxism from association with its supporters, you're using it defend a supporter from association with Marxism. A somewhat novel approach.

 

[MikeG]

.....Talk about hyperinflation goes even further into sillyland.

You added this after my previous response. I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the only people who have mentioned hyperinflation in this thread are the ones supporting the idea of borrowing billions (QE for the P) in a sort of straw-man argument. I most certainly haven't said anything about hyper-inflation. I expect that inflation will follow QE used during an upturn in the economic cycle in the way night follows day, but we live in too sophisticated an economy to suffer hyper-inflation a la Zimbabwe, even under the misguided hand of John McDonnell.

 

[Ambrosia]

Is that what happened?

So history isn't a strong point either then?

What does any of this have to do with Corbyn openly supporting those who advocate genocide?

define "supporting"

the 'Friends' quote regarding Hamas was Corbyn being diplomatic, at a meeting in parliament about the Middle East. He actively wants to get Hamas and Hezbollah and all of the rest of them around a table to talk.

Of course it's far too easy to take things out of context and cherry pick stuff (FSM knows there's plenty to choose from) to paint Corbyn as something he's not.

So far you've labelled him as a Marxist and a friend of terrorists. He's neither.

If you're going to take issue with him or his policies, at least be accurate.

I don't support the guy. I'd much prefer a Lib Dem PM myself. I disagree with a lot of his policies and ideas. I do have a lot of respect though for a politician who doesn't give a **** about the media, and who is firm in his convictions.

 

[MikeG]

.......So far you've labelled him as a Marxist ...... He's neither.........

Are you sure? Reuters report him as an admirer of Marxism. Amongst many others.

 

[Ambrosia]

Are you sure? Reuters report him as an admirer of Marxism. Amongst many others.

During the campaign Corbyn has been repeatedly asked about whether he supported the views of Marx, co-author of "The Communist Manifesto". "He (Marx) was essentially a fascinating figure who observed a great deal and from whom we can learn a great deal," Corbyn said in a TV interview in July.

I'm not sure that makes him a Marxist.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Another rationalisation for his support for homeopathy. A cursory five minutes of research will show homeopathy to be utter crap. "Look into further"? Akin to "Just asking questions". Corbyn is a quack enabler.

If you think I would rationalise support for homeopathy then I can safely assume you're not familiar with my posting history, here or on the numerous other sites where I post with the same username (it ain't a pseudonym).


For the record I have absolutely no doubt that that homeopathy is the worst kind of horse crap, however a little digging shows that most of the articles about what Corbyn is supposed to have supported in the past tend to be based on homeopathic levels of evidence, or outright lies. There were some good examples in the last Private Eye. I haven't decided if I'd be prepared to vote for Corbyn yet, but in making that decision I would sooner be guided by media reports that in some way reflect what he actually stands for rather than an exaggerated attack campaign that presents obvious rhetorical devices as policy.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

Tell me, in the economics classes you claim to have taken how did they tell you money was created?

Well, we used Dornbusch et. al for the introductory course in macroeconomics. That wasn't particularly good in terms of money creation because it had that nonsense about the money multiplier in a much too important and restrictive role. Nevertheless, it was essentially correct about private bank money creation, but somewhat vague. Soon we'll have another one where the money creation process is updated to how it actually is, like how it's portrayed here.

You see, private banks AND the central banks both create money. Furthermore, government bonds are practically money as well. In fact, they are even more liquid than bank deposits in certain parts of the financial market. Government bonds can be turned into bank deposits in a few milliseconds anyway. The only way for private banks to get central bank money (which they need for settling customer and interbank transactions), is to go to the central bank with an eligible asset. And that would mostly be a government bond or some other government security. That’s how the private banking sector gets its money (it's not the same money they lend to households, btw.). That's why your notion about some "natural" way is rather odd to say the least.

That's an expenditure, not a source of financing.

Don't be silly.

Are you saying there's no limit to borrowing?

No.

 

[GlennB]

Are you sure? Reuters report him as an admirer of Marxism. Amongst many others.

Including Blair.

 

[GlennB]

... however a little digging shows that most of the articles about what Corbyn is supposed to have supported in the past tend to be based on homeopathic levels of evidence, or outright lies. There were some good examples in the last Private Eye.

A very good article in fact, titled "How to speak Corbyn", in which his full quotes on various subjects are contrasted with how they were summarised as soundbites in the rags that pass for newspapers in the UK.

 

[Rat]

This thread has become why I hate "MIckey Mouse Voters".
If you don't know, that is a term in the US for people who are such blind supporters of a polticial party, that if that party nominates Mickey Mouse to be it's leader, they will support him.
And I love the whole "Corbyn did not really mean that, and it's all lies by the evil capitalistic press anyway" routine.

I find this odd firstly, because that's not what I would take "Mickey Mouse voter" to mean in this country. So I looked it up, and it seems that that's not what it means in the US either.

Anyway, I'm not seeing many blind supporters of Labour here either way. I've never voted Labour. I'm pretty sure that Craig B didn't, at least at the last general election.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

No, it really isn't. Borrowing may be (currently) cheap, but it certainly isn't painless. Having a balanced budget would be much better than, say, having the debt to GDP ratio of Greece, for instance.......wouldn't you say?

The government will be in deficit if the current account is negative (which it is in the UK) and the private sector is determined to save (surplus). That will always be the case and there's no way around that fact. Whether it's cheap or expensive for the government to borrow won't change that at all. It's just basic national accounting. Normally, I would much rather have the government in a deficit position and the private sector in a surplus position – better for the private sector balance sheet than a zero balance.

Having a debt/GDP ratio like in Greece is bad for Greece which do not have a currency of its own, and why Greece is in such a mess in the first place. Japan, on the other hand, has a higher debt/GDP ratio than Greece… without any solvency problems.

You added this after my previous response. I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the only people who have mentioned hyperinflation in this thread are the ones supporting the idea of borrowing billions (QE for the P) in a sort of straw-man argument. I most certainly haven't said anything about hyper-inflation. I expect that inflation will follow QE used during an upturn in the economic cycle in the way night follows day, but we live in too sophisticated an economy to suffer hyper-inflation a la Zimbabwe, even under the misguided hand of John McDonnell.

Fair enough, you didn't do that… it was actually WildCat who did it. My apologies.

 

[WildCat]

So history isn't a strong point either then?

For one of us it is... and that one person isn't you.

define "supporting"

the 'Friends' quote regarding Hamas was Corbyn being diplomatic, at a meeting in parliament about the Middle East. He actively wants to get Hamas and Hezbollah and all of the rest of them around a table to talk.

Of course it's far too easy to take things out of context and cherry pick stuff (FSM knows there's plenty to choose from) to paint Corbyn as something he's not.

So far you've labelled him as a Marxist and a friend of terrorists. He's neither.

If you're going to take issue with him or his policies, at least be accurate.

I don't support the guy. I'd much prefer a Lib Dem PM myself. I disagree with a lot of his policies and ideas. I do have a lot of respect though for a politician who doesn't give a **** about the media, and who is firm in his convictions.

He's labeled himself as a friend of terrorists, and he boycotts Israel and supports those who want a genocide of the Jews.

And history is full of thoroughly evil people who were firm in their convictions. It's not having firm convictions that should be admired, but the substance of the convictions.

 

[WildCat]

Well, we used Dornbusch et. al for the introductory course in macroeconomics. That wasn't particularly good in terms of money creation because it had that nonsense about the money multiplier in a much too important and restrictive role. Nevertheless, it was essentially correct about private bank money creation, but somewhat vague. Soon we'll have another one where the money creation process is updated to how it actually is, like how it's portrayed here.

You see, private banks AND the central banks both create money. Furthermore, government bonds are practically money as well. In fact, they are even more liquid than bank deposits in certain parts of the financial market. Government bonds can be turned into bank deposits in a few milliseconds anyway. The only way for private banks to get central bank money (which they need for settling customer and interbank transactions), is to go to the central bank with an eligible asset. And that would mostly be a government bond or some other government security. That’s how the private banking sector gets its money (it's not the same money they lend to households, btw.). That's why your notion about some "natural" way is rather odd to say the least.

Is this a long way of saying I was right and that money is created when banks lend money? And thus the money supply grows naturally, without the government just printing it like the Weimar Republic did?

Don't be silly.

Feel free to show examples of infrastructure being built without outlays of money...

No.

And by what criteria do you and Corbyn conclude that borrowing on the scale he wants to do it is sustainable?

 

[WildCat]

Having a debt/GDP ratio like in Greece is bad for Greece which do not have a currency of its own,

Why is that, because if they had a currency of their own they could just print more? Because I could have sworn you just said that wasn't the plan...