Anti Austerity Alliance - Keeping people in Poverty Trap

Seth Brundle

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Hang on, did they not say that all that was Germany's fault?
Oh, and Michael Noonan's?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

FreudianSlippers

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Not only do they want to take us down that route - they want to take us down that route in the middle of a strong recovery, when there's really nothing they can do to put the genie back in the bottle with regard to the bailout and "burning the bondholders"

The Black Oil

Who do the AAA define as 'wealthy', btw and where's the accountability in the What We Stand For outline?

FreudianSlippers

The Black Oil wrote: »

Who do the AAA define as 'wealthy', btw and where's the accountability in the What We Stand For outline?

I'd guess anyone making over €70k

Jolly Red Giant

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

To start with SYRIZA never clung to its anti-austerity ideals - from day one Tsipras was attempting to do a deal with the troika in the hope the troika would be willing to compromise. If SYRIZA stuck to its ideals then it would have nationalised the banking system, imposed credit controls, imposed price controls etc.

As for 'pensioners swarming outside closed banks' - most of that was a load of bollix - there was little 'panic', few queues, etc. there was plenty of food in stores and the medicines ran low long before SYRIZA ever came to power.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

One small section of the shop - there was bulk buying of rice, flour and sugar. There was ample food supplies available throughout the crisis. The problem was that because of the austerity policies implemented by ND/PASOK up to have the population had no money to buy food and most have been engaged in barter for the past four years. Since 2012 Xekinima (the sister party of the Socialist Party in Greece) have been helping communities organise direct buying of food from small farmers in rural communities to keep the cost of food manageable for families and help small farmers being screwed by the multi-national food chains.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The policies that have destroyed people's lives in Greece have been the policies of austerity imposed on Greek society since 2008. The asinine policies of austerity has seen a quadrupling of suicides, a massive increase in prostitution etc etc - all thanks to the troika.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

We live in a country where the Tanaiste Joan Burton takes pleasure in opening a food bank, a country that has seen 83 families in Dublin made homeless, suicide rates at an all-time high of 554 last year, hundreds of people on trollies etc. We have people in the exact same crisis situations like Greece - just fewer of them. That might be irrelevant to you - but one person in that situation is one person too many for me.

Jolly Red Giant

The Black Oil wrote: »

Who do the AAA define as 'wealthy', btw and where's the accountability in the What We Stand For outline?

Have a look at the McWilliams documentary on RTE this week.

jank

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

To start with SYRIZA never clung to its anti-austerity ideals - from day one Tsipras was attempting to do a deal with the troika in the hope the troika would be willing to compromise. If SYRIZA stuck to its ideals then it would have nationalised the banking system, imposed credit controls, imposed price controls etc.

As for 'pensioners swarming outside closed banks' - most of that was a load of bollix - there was little 'panic', few queues, etc. there was plenty of food in stores and the medicines ran low long before SYRIZA ever came to power.


One small section of the shop - there was bulk buying of rice, flour and sugar. There was ample food supplies available throughout the crisis. The problem was that because of the austerity policies implemented by ND/PASOK up to have the population had no money to buy food and most have been engaged in barter for the past four years. Since 2012 Xekinima (the sister party of the Socialist Party in Greece) have been helping communities organise direct buying of food from small farmers in rural communities to keep the cost of food manageable for families and help small farmers being screwed by the multi-national food chains.


The policies that have destroyed people's lives in Greece have been the policies of austerity imposed on Greek society since 2008. The asinine policies of austerity has seen a quadrupling of suicides, a massive increase in prostitution etc etc - all thanks to the troika.


We live in a country where the Tanaiste Joan Burton takes pleasure in opening a food bank, a country that has seen 83 families in Dublin made homeless, suicide rates at an all-time high of 554 last year, hundreds of people on trollies etc. We have people in the exact same crisis situations like Greece - just fewer of them. That might be irrelevant to you - but one person in that situation is one person too many for me.

It reminds me of Pravda in the last days of the Soviet Union proclaiming that there had been record yields in agricultural crops. Pictures of hungry Russians with worthless food coupons queuing for hours outside shops with no food to 'sell' told another story entirely.

Jolly Red Giant

jank wrote: »

It reminds me of Pravda in the last days of the Soviet Union proclaiming that there had been record yields in agricultural crops. Pictures of hungry Russians with worthless food coupons queuing for hours outside shops with no food to 'sell' told another story entirely.

Plenty of food in Russian shops these days - the problem is that few people have any money to buy it.

@Jolly

@Jolly Red Giant,

Two posts you might have missed on the previous page

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=97137159&postcount=66

Deleted User wrote: »

You might think that that explains something, but it does not. In a socialist society, mathematics still applies.

I'm more than comfortable discussing the costings and workings of a socialist economy and society within a socialist framework.

So lets hear them. Let's get into the socialist ideal and talk it through from that perspective.
--
On a separate note, I asked what the point of electing the representatives are. We do operate in a capitalist environment, and if they are elected to office they are required to operate within that framework. So their policies within the capitalist framework are relevant, and do require costings etc. And so their economic illiteracy is a very important consideration and failing.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=97137629&postcount=69

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I suppose the next logical question then is what would happen if a socialist party was elected in the morning? They would be inheriting a system whereby marginal income tax rates were high, welfare was running at c. €20bn p.a. and with a significant, but diminishing budget deficit etc

Were they to inherit a healthy economy there would be no question but that they would spend money for people's benefit or to invest in the economy, but what corrective steps would they take to mend the capitalist system that has been decimated by FF/FG/Lab.

Clearly socialists would not inflate a property boom, nor would they socialise bank debts. So we know what socialists would do in the event of the next financial crisis.

And if the ultimate goal is a sort of utopian society where money is abolished because private property is unnecessary, I can see how at that stage we would no longer need to think in capitalist terms.

But what steps they would take to turn captialism into socialism is the part I can't get my head around.

Let's take the homeless situation. Suppose the main promise/issue in the election was to do something about the lack of social housing, and either €500m is required to buy land and pay for workers/materials, or say 5 acres of land, 3,000 workers and 100 tonnes of building supplies are needed to implement this policy. How is it achieved:

1) do you borrow money speicifically for it?
2) do you increase tax or impose a new tax to cover it?
3) do you ask for voluntary donations from people?
4) do you take the money from another area e.g. social welfare budget?
5) do you just spend it and the deficit increases?
6) do you seize the land and goods from the burgeoise and threaten the workers with jail unless they comply?

I appreciate that you can't necessarily speak about socialism in capitalist terms, but then surely you must explain how things would work under your view of socialism and how you would get the ball rolling?

Jolly Red Giant

Deleted User wrote: »

You might think that that explains something, but it does not. In a socialist society, mathematics still applies.

Capitalist economics doesn't operate on the basis of maths. Capitalist economies have to create fictitious financial products to create bubbles and crashes so the elites can exploit both. Finite resources are used for quick-buck profits with little thought given to long-term planning

Socialist economics doesn't operate on the basis of maths either - the driving force of a democratically planned socialised economy is provision for need. Finite resources are used for productive purposes that will enhance production.

Deleted User wrote: »

On a separate note, I asked what the point of electing the representatives are. We do operate in a capitalist environment, and if they are elected to office they are required to operate within that framework. So their policies within the capitalist framework are relevant, and do require costings etc. And so their economic illiteracy is a very important consideration and failing.

Everyone has to operate within a capitalist framework - that does not mean that socialists have to accept the capitalist framework. Indeed, socialists have an obligation to expose the nature of capitalism and promote collectivised action by the working class and offer an alternative. Socialists argue that capitalism cannot be managed but must be replaced.

I would also reject the notion that socialists are economically illiterate. For years the capitalist economists and organisations like the OECD were claiming that the property bubble was 'robust and sustainable' - they were proven to be economically illiterate. While all the capitalist economists were oblivious to the potential for a crash the Socialist Party were arguing that the government and the spivs and speculators were creating a bubble that would come crashing down with disastrous consequences for working class people.

oscarBravo

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Socialist economics doesn't operate on the basis of maths...

Yeah, I have a problem with that.

"Maths? I reject your bourgeois mathematics and substitute my own!"

...the driving force of a democratically planned socialised economy is provision for need. Finite resources are used for productive purposes that will enhance production.

If slogans were edible, a socialist paradise would indeed be a utopia of plenty.

Jolly Red Giant

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

1) do you borrow money speicifically for it?

Again you are beginning from the presumption that a socialised economy would have a capitalist banking system - not the case. Borrowings would not exist as they do now - resources would be re-allocated.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

2) do you increase tax or impose a new tax to cover it?

Same issue - your assumption is that the economics of a capitalist government would apply - again - not the case. In a participatory democracy in a socialised economy decisions on the allocation of resources will be decided by those involved.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

3) do you ask for voluntary donations from people?

No - charity is a manifestation of inequality prevalent in a capitalist society.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

4) do you take the money from another area e.g. social welfare budget?

Again - you are asking the question from a capitalist basis - it would not be a case of 'taking money' from 'social welfare budget' - the people who 'take money' are the capitalist class who take it from the rest of society. The resources necessary to alleviate poverty would be significantly reduced in a socialised economy by virtue of the fact that the resources wasted by capitalism would not be wasted.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

5) do you just spend it and the deficit increases?

deficits are a phenomenon of capitalism - indeed capitalism needs debt to drive profit. A socialised economy does not borrow and spend - it allocates resources, be they raw materials, manufactured goods, labour power, transport etc etc.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

6) do you seize the land and goods from the burgeoise and threaten the workers with jail unless they comply?

A democratic planning requires that a socialised economy control the main sectors of the economy - and yes - this would require the appropriation of these sectors of the economy from the bourgeoisie.

The second part of your question is nonsensical - why would workers have to be threatened with jail in a society controlled by workers.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I appreciate that you can't necessarily speak about socialism in capitalist terms, but then surely you must explain how things would work under your view of socialism and how you would get the ball rolling?

I can always try - the problem is that it is difficult to have this conversation with someone who can only think about economic issues from a capitalist mindset - you have to be able to think outside the box.

Now - just for clarification - what is outlined above is the very basic references of a democratically planned socialised economy. Representatives of the Anti-Austerity Alliance do not approach addressing economic issues on the basis of contrasting the current crisis with a socialised economy - the AAA counter-poses what could be best described as Keynesianism operated from a working class perspective. That is what AAA representatives argue for in terms of reversing cuts, creating jobs by investment in infrastructure, building social housing etc and the implementation of wealth taxes and other progressive tax measures.

Such measures would alleviate the impact of the crisis on working class people in the short to medium term - but it is not a solution as such measures
would still operate within the framework of capitalism and would inevitably succumb to the inherent contradictions of capitalism. To counter-pose a capitalist economy with a socialised economy - it is not something that the vast majority would be able to register. This is why socialist representatives will outline transitional proposals that would alleviate the immediate crisis but then extend it to the necessity of a fundamental change in the structure of the economy.

Jolly Red Giant

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yeah, I have a problem with that.

"Maths? I reject your bourgeois mathematics and substitute my own!"

Capitalist economics doesn't operate on the basis of maths - it operates on the basis of greed.

oscarBravo wrote: »

If slogans were edible, a socialist paradise would indeed be a utopia of plenty.

OB - incapable of thinking outside his narrow world view.:rolleyes:

oscarBravo

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Capitalist economics doesn't operate on the basis of maths - it operates on the basis of greed.

Yes, so you've said. You also said that socialist economics doesn't operate on the basis of mathematics either, so I was wondering on what basis it does operate?

OB - incapable of thinking outside his narrow world view.:rolleyes:

Well, it would help if you'd move beyond sloganeering, to be honest.

We've had discussions before, and you've left me utterly unconvinced. Now, either that's because I'm a terrible person who is just too outright evil to want to grasp the pure beauty of what you're proposing, or you've painted a picture that's barely more detailed than a crayon sketch, which strongly suggests to me that you have no clue how what you want could possible work in reality.

Of course Capitalism or Socialism don't 'operate on the basis of maths'. What a bizarre notion, and not offered by anyone!

Mathematics can be applied to all elements of Capitalism and Socialism in order to generate comparisons.

10 capitalist shoes > 8 socialist shoes etc.

Explaining to us how Socialism is a preferable environ would require this kind of ability to generate quantifiable comparisons...

Jolly Red Giant

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yes, so you've said. You also said that socialist economics doesn't operate on the basis of mathematics either, so I was wondering on what basis it does operate?

Need

oscarBravo wrote: »

We've had discussions before, and you've left me utterly unconvinced. Now, either that's because I'm a terrible person who is just too outright evil to want to grasp the pure beauty of what you're proposing, or you've painted a picture that's barely more detailed than a crayon sketch, which strongly suggests to me that you have no clue how what you want could possible work in reality.

It is because you can think one way and one way only - from a capitalist perspective.

Jolly Red Giant

Deleted User wrote: »

Of course Capitalism or Socialism don't 'operate on the basis of maths'. What a bizarre notion, and not offered by anyone!

Mathematics can be applied to all elements of Capitalism and Socialism in order to generate comparisons.

Nope - it is like comparing apples and oranges - you can't

Deleted User wrote: »

10 capitalist shoes > 8 socialist shoes etc.

the shoes are not capitalist or socialist - the mode of production that makes the shoes are capitalist or socialist.

Deleted User wrote: »

Explaining to us how Socialism is a preferable environ would require this kind of ability to generate quantifiable comparisons...

There are no quantifiable comparisons - they are two different economic systems that operate on a different basis with a different social base and for a different purpose.

Quantifiable capitalism operates on profit margins and market share.

Quantifiable socialism operates on allocating resources and fulfilling need.

relax carry on

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Need

Who defines the "need" part of the Socialist equation?

I "need" a mansion and a Ferrari. Where do I submit my application?

Hotblack Desiato

I'll ask again. How do you overcome the appalling lack of productivity in socialist economies? How do you incentivise innovation and effort? With no competitive marketplace, how do you ensure that production methods are efficient, quality is maintained and the consumer obtains value? How do you ensure the central planning body is aware of and addresses the needs of consumers? How do you ensure that resources are allocated efficiently, again in the lack of any market incentive? How do you propose to reallocate resources as you said above? Seize them?

These are all very serious problems, which every attempt ever devised at a socialist economy has failed utterly to address never mind solve.

If the facts show that a theory fails to work every time it is applied, perhaps instead of questioning the facts or the abilities of those attempting to apply the theory, it is time to question whether the theory itself is at all workable?

Jolly Red Giant

relax carry on wrote: »

I "need" a mansion and a Ferrari. Where do I submit my application?

No - you want a mansion and a Ferrari to try an compensate for inadequacies elsewhere.

relax carry on

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

No - you want a mansion and a Ferrari to try an compensate for inadequacies elsewhere.

Not what I asked. You support this version of society. You describe how "need" is defined in your societal model. Who defines it? Is it set in stone? How will it be redefined in the face of economic/natural disasters? What happens to those who disagree with whatever your version of "need" actually is?

Also if vaguely attacking a poster is the best you can do when asked a question about your firmly held belief in this ideal, then I suggest you may wish to revisit the model and ask yourself is it actually workable in a real world scenario.

ancapailldorcha

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

No - you want a mansion and a Ferrari to try an compensate for inadequacies elsewhere.

You've had multiple warnings. Do not post in this thread again.

oscarBravo

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

No - you want a mansion and a Ferrari to try an compensate for inadequacies elsewhere.

I'm disappointed on one level that you're banned from replying, because the mansion and Ferrari made it too easy for you. I was going to posit a different scenario:

Today I got in the post the parts I needed to assemble a function generator, which joins various other gadgets like my oscilloscope, logic analyser and bench power supply in allowing me to pursue one of my hobbies, which is electronic tinkering.

Do I need these things? Who decides? I don't really create any value from them, other than my personal edification and satisfaction. In a socialist economy, would I have these things, or would they only be "allocated" to production facilities that "need" them?

If I can't have these things - and, let's face it, they don't cost the tiniest fraction of what a mansion or Ferrari does - why would I want to live in such an utterly empty and pointless society?

Like, do I "need" to have fun, and who decides what's appropriate "fun" to "need"?

I know that JRG isn't allowed to answer these questions now - but, to be fair, it's not like he ever did.

Geuze

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

There are 2 million people with medical cards because their incomes/living standards are so low as to be on the poverty line. The travel passes apply to OAPs - most of whom are in receipt of the basic state pension and use the travel pass to visit their families.

Note that thousands of fairly well off pensioners have med cards.

I know some with 500k assets who have med cards - very common.

Note that nearly half of travel passes are held by non-pensioners.

Geuze

Geuze wrote: »

Note that thousands of fairly well off pensioners have med cards.

I know some with 500k assets who have med cards - very common.

Note that nearly half of travel passes are held by non-pensioners.

Note also, that even though all these people have Medical Cards and free travel, they don't necessarily use them. I know Elderly people who will use the card to visit their doctor, then use their private health insurance if further investigations are needed. I also know 4 people, one elderly, 2 on disability and the 4th a carer, who have free travel. Only ONE of them ever uses it! As the others live in the countryside with no public transport, they have to either drive or be driven around.

Hotblack Desiato

The GP still gets paid for each medical card patient whether they ever see them or not. So there certainly is a cost attached to this vote-getter.

Idbatterim

And there is much to criticize, clearly. The government in its re-election campaign will take credit for an economic recovery -- but the recovery would have been more rapid and far-reaching if not for the government's decision to protect public servants and welfare recipients at the expense of fostering job creation and investment even more aggressively.

This government has squandered valuable opportunities to carry out a root-and-branch reform of the public sector, enact far-reaching reform of the welfare system, or broaden the tax base so that the top rate of tax does not kick in at circa €33k. That is the enormous price that this government has paid for putting the junior coalition partner (Labour) in charge of public sector reform and social protection. What we got in return is public sector protection and no welfare reform.

The government has also protected the old at the expense of the young, preserving benefits and medical cards for wealthy pensioners while cutting the dole to €100/week for under-25s.

read the first few pages and there have been some excellent posts and point. The above I just keep thinking about personally all the time. Lots of people here want thing to change, to improve, they want jobs or better paid jobs, or not to have to emigrate. A lot of these people would have voted for Labour, so they vote for a party that is going to keep things as they are, so these people can get a few euro more in their pocket on welfare "at the time" yet on the other hand, dont see why things dont improve more quickly, because that is what they voted for, their vision is short term in the extreme! Ont he one hand, they deserve what they get, on the they dont know any better.

I would love a new straight up no bull****, not be everyone to anything party, if 25% of the electorate voted for them, they could be the biggest part and seeing as we are unlikely to ever get a one party government here, even a part that totally 15-20% of the vote, which isnt asking too much IMO, could have a massive influence on the country.

Literally I am sick of hearing the same ****, same words, same spoof from the usual faces on the same issues. I literally dont even need to watch the news or whatever anymore, I know immediately what the opposition response will be... Politics here really is a joke, modern Ireland, needs a modern party, not with people who are 60-70 years old. We need to leave old Ireland totally behind, it is responsible for where we are now. The joke of the housing crisis, appalling infrastructure. I dont know if its just because they are so bad at what they do or dont know any better....

Thu, Oct 8 2015, 13:18 AAA and PBP join to form new ‘left of Labour’ party

Sat, Oct 31 2015, 01:00 Give Me a Crash Course In . . . the left-wing voting pact

Sat, Oct 31 2015, 19:13 People Before Profit splits with Anti-Austerity Alliance on pact

One of the shortest alliances I can recall.

The AAA and PBP appear to have parted ways on the back of PBP supporting the "formation of a left-first government that will incorporate fully the Right2Water principles".

The ideological clash appears to have proved too much for AAA, who have not signed up to the Right2Change left pact.

nice_guy80

I think Fine Gael have protected the public sector as much as Labour

FG know where a lot of their votes come from. Middle income Ireland