Armagedon:
This ‘topic’ seems to be lost in ‘how and why’ the puncture happened and not on ‘how’ it can be repaired while ensuring it doesn’t happen again.
There’s no way that you can fix something without finding out what’s gone wrong with it and why first.
Carryfast:
Armagedon:
This ‘topic’ seems to be lost in ‘how and why’ the puncture happened and not on ‘how’ it can be repaired while ensuring it doesn’t happen again.There’s no way that you can fix something without finding out what’s gone wrong with it and why first.
I agree with Armagedon. Simply understanding why something went wrong, does not necessarily give you the tools to fix it and particularly when it’s not just the US and UK economies that have moved on, but the rest of the world as well.
Not to mention the socio-political changes over the last 40 odd years, that have shaped the world as we know it today. These include the rise of the fast growing eastern and south American countries, not to mention the massive increase in fundamental Islamism throughout the world as well. And even that is only scratching the surface of the changes the world has seen since the so-called economic heydays you seem to think are the solution to our current problems.
Everything you describe about the UK economy in the 70’s may be correct, but as before, it doesn’t take into account the changes that have been going on in the rest of the world in the meantime.
Whilst I agree that some of my comments about a protected economy were extreme, you can’t avoid the fact that other economies not given access to our market would, given the chance, exploit our weaknesses, which are all based around our lack of natural resources. Where would we get the steel from to build what we need for our own consumption? We’d be competing with the Chinese, the Indians and the Japanese to name but three, for access to Australian raw materials. Just how do you think we would earn the money to outbid those economies? Or why should the Russians continue to sell us gas, when they could sell it far more profitably to the French, the Dutch and the Germans?
I just don’t see how, using your model, we would be able to earn the foreign currency that would allow us to purchase the resources we would need to even think about becoming self sufficient within our own protected market.
I just wish you would give us your recipe for a revived UK economy today Carryfast, instead of constantly harping on about a not particularly efficient or sustainable period of economic history. Sadly, I don’t think you have a clear idea about how that could be achieved without some of the things I warned about in my earlier post actually happening.
Oh, and I’m not proposing any specific type of economy. I’m asking you how you think it would be even conceivably possible to recreate the UK economy of the 60’s-70’s in today’s world economic, and geo-political climate.
EastAnglianTrucker:
Carryfast:
Armagedon:
This ‘topic’ seems to be lost in ‘how and why’ the puncture happened and not on ‘how’ it can be repaired while ensuring it doesn’t happen again.There’s no way that you can fix something without finding out what’s gone wrong with it and why first.
I agree with Armagedon. Simply understanding why something went wrong, does not necessarily give you the tools to fix it and particularly when it’s not just the US and UK economies that have moved on, but the rest of the world as well.
Not to mention the socio-political changes over the last 40 odd years, that have shaped the world as we know it today. These include the rise of the fast growing eastern and south American countries, not to mention the massive increase in fundamental Islamism throughout the world as well. And even that is only scratching the surface of the changes the world has seen since the so-called economic heydays you seem to think are the solution to our current problems.
Everything you describe about the UK economy in the 70’s may be correct, but as before, it doesn’t take into account the changes that have been going on in the rest of the world in the meantime.
Whilst I agree that some of my comments about a protected economy were extreme, you can’t avoid the fact that other economies not given access to our market would, given the chance, exploit our weaknesses, which are all based around our lack of natural resources. Where would we get the steel from to build what we need for our own consumption? We’d be competing with the Chinese, the Indians and the Japanese to name but three, for access to Australian raw materials. Just how do you think we would earn the money to outbid those economies? Or why should the Russians continue to sell us gas, when they could sell it far more profitably to the French, the Dutch and the Germans?
I just don’t see how, using your model, we would be able to earn the foreign currency that would allow us to purchase the resources we would need to even think about becoming self sufficient within our own protected market.
I just wish you would give us your recipe for a revived UK economy today Carryfast, instead of constantly harping on about a not particularly efficient or sustainable period of economic history. Sadly, I don’t think you have a clear idea about how that could be achieved without some of the things I warned about in my earlier post actually happening.
Oh, and I’m not proposing any specific type of economy. I’m asking you how you think it would be even conceivably possible to recreate the UK economy of the 60’s-70’s in today’s world economic, and geo-political climate.
If you think what you’ve got now is efficient and sustainable just wait until you end up in the situation that Greece is 
.
Do you really think that China etc would be in a position to outbid us and the US for raw materials assuming that both Europe,us and the US closed our markets to Chinese manaufactured goods.Other than cheap labour China has zb all to offer anyone to buy anything with.All of it’s economic growth so far has been done on the back of exports to countries like us and the US that we could have made for ourselves so any money the place earns has to effectively be given to them by us first.Without the European,US and UK export markets China would be zb’d just like it was in the days when we did make our own products for our own markets.
As for fuel imports.How are you going to pay for them anyway under the present system in which we’re a net importer paying for the stuff on borrowed money being shuffled between one service industry and another 
.
As I’ve said we’re going to need to tell the global warming believers to zb off and get the coal fields re opened.That would provide around 1,000 years worth of domestic supplies assuming we don’t then flog the stuff to everyone else like they did with our oil and gas.It would also provide a synthetic coal to oil and gas supply.
Then we need to get back to a situation whereby we use our own domestic labour to make our own manufactured goods which removes most of the trade deficit issue with trade barriers and quotas to block the situation of imports outweighing exports.
The so called geo political issues like Islamism really only apply in the sense of immigration policies causing the problem here and the fact that the zb’s aren’t frightened of us enough in the places where they should stay like Iran and Pakistan.Both of which would be better solved by and end to immigration and repatriation of those who are already here and use of the strategic option not the troops on the ground walking around getting blown up by IED’s one.
As for the rest of your questions how are you going to be able to continue with the present situation of carrying a massive trade deficit all payed for with money borrowed from the countries that you’re importing the goods from which are causing the deficit and why anyway when most of that deficit is made up of stuff that we don’t even need to be importing.
It seems to me that like many others you’ve been taken in and brainwashed by the Thatcherite global free market idea (which doesn’t and never will work) to the point where the proven idea of Fordism is just an alien impossible to understand economic sysyem to you. 
The fact is there’s two options.One has been proven not to work the other has and there’s no third option. 
But in most cases it’s no good being given the job and having the tools to fix something without also having a clue as to what’s gone wrong and why.That would be the Cam and Clegg school of government. 
Geoff, are you a Communist or a Fascist?
Carryfast:
If you think what you’ve got now is efficient and sustainable just wait until you end up in the situation that Greece is
I don’t. And that’s why I’ve said there needs to be a better way forward. But it ain’t your way!
Carryfast:
Do you really think that China etc would be in a position to outbid us and the US for raw materials assuming that both Europe,us and the US closed our markets to Chinese manaufactured goods.Other than cheap labour China has zb all to offer anyone to buy anything with.All of it’s economic growth so far has been done on the back of exports to countries like us and the US that we could have made for ourselves so any money the place earns has to effectively be given to them by us first.Without the European,US and UK export markets China would be zb’d just like it was in the days when we did make our own products for our own markets.
This is absurd. Your argument above takes no account of the vast investment in infrastructure and much of the worthwhile industrial base in Europe, the US and in the UK, by the sovereign wealth funds and private investors in countries like China, India, Russia, Quatar, Dubai, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia.
China not only has cheap labour, it also has our money, which they’ve invested in our societies. They certainly won’t want to lose that, and they won’t shy away from using those investments as bargaining chips.
Your only hope is for social unrest within China, effectively paralysing their ability to respond to Euro, US and British commercial aggression. And even then I don’t expect the western “allies” could resist a Chinese takeover of Australia, or for that matter, many of the resource rich African and Middle Eastern states. And that’s possibly what the economic model you advocate would result in.
Carryfast:
The so called geo political issues like Islamism really only apply in the sense of immigration policies causing the problem here and the fact that the zb’s aren’t frightened of us enough in the places where they should stay like Iran and Pakistan.Both of which would be better solved by and end to immigration and repatriation of those who are already here and use of the strategic option not the troops on the ground walking around getting blown up by IED’s one.
With both Iran and Pakistan having strategic nuclear weapons, I don’t see Islamism as simply a problem of immigration. Not to mention the probably hundreds of thousands of British born Muslims with split allegiances, some of which are not wholly in our favour. Or are you advocating the expulsion, sorry, repatriation of British Muslims to the country of their ancestors origin?
Sounds dangerously fascist to me Carryfast! Internment? Ethnic cleansing? What’s your proposal here Carryfast? You’re going to have to do better than say it’s simply an immigration problem!
Carryfast:
As for the rest of your questions how are you going to be able to continue with the present situation of carrying a massive trade deficit all payed for with money borrowed from the countries that you’re importing the goods from which are causing the deficit and why anyway when most of that deficit is made up of stuff that we don’t even need to be importing.
Well I’m not advocating an economic plan. You are. All I’ve been saying is that the current model, just like the one you’re proposing, is NOT the solution. I have been saying there needs to be a more imaginative and creative approach, taking into account past history and present circumstances.
If I felt able in any way to propose a serious economic alternative, believe me I would. But I’m smart enough to know that what we have at the moment isn’t working and what you propose is 40 years out of date.
Carryfast:
It seems to me that like many others you’ve been taken in and brainwashed by the Thatcherite global free market idea (which doesn’t and never will work) to the point where the proven idea of Fordism is just an alien impossible to understand economic system to you.
You have no evidence to support that assumption. In fact, I suspect that anyone who doesn’t agree with your economic ■■■■■■■■ must by definition be a Thatcherite! Which is simply more absurdity.
Carryfast:
The fact is there’s two options.One has been proven not to work the other has and there’s no third option.
In your opinion! And such entrenched and dogmatic statements just undermine the integrity of your own arguement. Why is there no third option? Because you say so? Don’t be so daft! That sort of thinking has started a couple of world wars!
It’s back to the drawing board for you young Carryfast!
Carryfast:
caledoniandream:
Is there any great example where the Unions called a strike and this leaded to sustainable results?
I don’t agree that it was a good idea to get the children out the chimneys and mines, as I am sure there was much less trouble on the streets nowadays if the where still there
So you really think that the British economy would have been where it was in 1970 if the union movement had just given up and took no further action after the 1926 general strike
The truth is it was all uphill between those years and all downhill from 1975 when Callaghan and Thatcher took the exact opposite view of people like Ford concerning the best way to run an economy.
Just like the rest of the EEC it’s no surprise that the Dutch gained from Britain’s membership of the EEC at the expense of the British.Things might have been a lot different if it had been Shore who led the Labour Party not Callaghan and if North Sea Oil had been kept here just for our own use at non OPEC price and if we’d have kept the trade surplus we had with the EEC countries before we’d joined instead of the deficit we had after.
LOL The fish is caught
EastAnglianTrucker:
Carryfast:
If you think what you’ve got now is efficient and sustainable just wait until you end up in the situation that Greece isI don’t. And that’s why I’ve said there needs to be a better way forward. But it ain’t your way!
Carryfast:
Do you really think that China etc would be in a position to outbid us and the US for raw materials assuming that both Europe,us and the US closed our markets to Chinese manaufactured goods.Other than cheap labour China has zb all to offer anyone to buy anything with.All of it’s economic growth so far has been done on the back of exports to countries like us and the US that we could have made for ourselves so any money the place earns has to effectively be given to them by us first.Without the European,US and UK export markets China would be zb’d just like it was in the days when we did make our own products for our own markets.This is absurd. Your argument above takes no account of the vast investment in infrastructure and much of the worthwhile industrial base in Europe, the US and in the UK, by the sovereign wealth funds and private investors in countries like China, India, Russia, Quatar, Dubai, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia.
China not only has cheap labour, it also has our money, which they’ve invested in our societies. They certainly won’t want to lose that, and they won’t shy away from using those investments as bargaining chips.
Your only hope is for social unrest within China, effectively paralysing their ability to respond to Euro, US and British commercial aggression. And even then I don’t expect the western “allies” could resist a Chinese takeover of Australia, or for that matter, many of the resource rich African and Middle Eastern states. And that’s possibly what the economic model you advocate would result in.
Carryfast:
The so called geo political issues like Islamism really only apply in the sense of immigration policies causing the problem here and the fact that the zb’s aren’t frightened of us enough in the places where they should stay like Iran and Pakistan.Both of which would be better solved by and end to immigration and repatriation of those who are already here and use of the strategic option not the troops on the ground walking around getting blown up by IED’s one.With both Iran and Pakistan having strategic nuclear weapons, I don’t see Islamism as simply a problem of immigration. Not to mention the probably hundreds of thousands of British born Muslims with split allegiances, some of which are not wholly in our favour. Or are you advocating the expulsion, sorry, repatriation of British Muslims to the country of their ancestors origin?
Sounds dangerously fascist to me Carryfast! Internment? Ethnic cleansing? What’s your proposal here Carryfast? You’re going to have to do better than say it’s simply an immigration problem!
Carryfast:
As for the rest of your questions how are you going to be able to continue with the present situation of carrying a massive trade deficit all payed for with money borrowed from the countries that you’re importing the goods from which are causing the deficit and why anyway when most of that deficit is made up of stuff that we don’t even need to be importing.Well I’m not advocating an economic plan. You are. All I’ve been saying is that the current model, just like the one you’re proposing, is NOT the solution. I have been saying there needs to be a more imaginative and creative approach, taking into account past history and present circumstances.
If I felt able in any way to propose a serious economic alternative, believe me I would. But I’m smart enough to know that what we have at the moment isn’t working and what you propose is 40 years out of date.
Carryfast:
It seems to me that like many others you’ve been taken in and brainwashed by the Thatcherite global free market idea (which doesn’t and never will work) to the point where the proven idea of Fordism is just an alien impossible to understand economic system to you.You have no evidence to support that assumption. In fact, I suspect that anyone who doesn’t agree with your economic ■■■■■■■■ must by definition be a Thatcherite! Which is simply more absurdity.
Carryfast:
The fact is there’s two options.One has been proven not to work the other has and there’s no third option.In your opinion! And such entrenched and dogmatic statements just undermine the integrity of your own arguement. Why is there no third option? Because you say so? Don’t be so daft! That sort of thinking has started a couple of world wars!
It’s back to the drawing board for you young Carryfast!
The fish is netted
EastAnglianTrucker:
Carryfast:
If you think what you’ve got now is efficient and sustainable just wait until you end up in the situation that Greece isI don’t. And that’s why I’ve said there needs to be a better way forward. But it ain’t your way!
Carryfast:
Do you really think that China etc would be in a position to outbid us and the US for raw materials assuming that both Europe,us and the US closed our markets to Chinese manaufactured goods.Other than cheap labour China has zb all to offer anyone to buy anything with.All of it’s economic growth so far has been done on the back of exports to countries like us and the US that we could have made for ourselves so any money the place earns has to effectively be given to them by us first.Without the European,US and UK export markets China would be zb’d just like it was in the days when we did make our own products for our own markets.This is absurd. Your argument above takes no account of the vast investment in infrastructure and much of the worthwhile industrial base in Europe, the US and in the UK, by the sovereign wealth funds and private investors in countries like China, India, Russia, Quatar, Dubai, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia.
China not only has cheap labour, it also has our money, which they’ve invested in our societies. They certainly won’t want to lose that, and they won’t shy away from using those investments as bargaining chips.
Your only hope is for social unrest within China, effectively paralysing their ability to respond to Euro, US and British commercial aggression. And even then I don’t expect the western “allies” could resist a Chinese takeover of Australia, or for that matter, many of the resource rich African and Middle Eastern states. And that’s possibly what the economic model you advocate would result in.
Carryfast:
The so called geo political issues like Islamism really only apply in the sense of immigration policies causing the problem here and the fact that the zb’s aren’t frightened of us enough in the places where they should stay like Iran and Pakistan.Both of which would be better solved by and end to immigration and repatriation of those who are already here and use of the strategic option not the troops on the ground walking around getting blown up by IED’s one.With both Iran and Pakistan having strategic nuclear weapons, I don’t see Islamism as simply a problem of immigration. Not to mention the probably hundreds of thousands of British born Muslims with split allegiances, some of which are not wholly in our favour. Or are you advocating the expulsion, sorry, repatriation of British Muslims to the country of their ancestors origin?
Sounds dangerously fascist to me Carryfast! Internment? Ethnic cleansing? What’s your proposal here Carryfast? You’re going to have to do better than say it’s simply an immigration problem!
Carryfast:
As for the rest of your questions how are you going to be able to continue with the present situation of carrying a massive trade deficit all payed for with money borrowed from the countries that you’re importing the goods from which are causing the deficit and why anyway when most of that deficit is made up of stuff that we don’t even need to be importing.Well I’m not advocating an economic plan. You are. All I’ve been saying is that the current model, just like the one you’re proposing, is NOT the solution. I have been saying there needs to be a more imaginative and creative approach, taking into account past history and present circumstances.
If I felt able in any way to propose a serious economic alternative, believe me I would. But I’m smart enough to know that what we have at the moment isn’t working and what you propose is 40 years out of date.
Carryfast:
It seems to me that like many others you’ve been taken in and brainwashed by the Thatcherite global free market idea (which doesn’t and never will work) to the point where the proven idea of Fordism is just an alien impossible to understand economic system to you.You have no evidence to support that assumption. In fact, I suspect that anyone who doesn’t agree with your economic ■■■■■■■■ must by definition be a Thatcherite! Which is simply more absurdity.
Carryfast:
The fact is there’s two options.One has been proven not to work the other has and there’s no third option.In your opinion! And such entrenched and dogmatic statements just undermine the integrity of your own arguement. Why is there no third option? Because you say so? Don’t be so daft! That sort of thinking has started a couple of world wars!
It’s back to the drawing board for you young Carryfast!
You seem to have admitted that your idea would need to continue the present situation,which means effectively putting our own economic interests aside,in favour of countries like China.All because you’re scared of the potential threat posed by China if we were to tell them to zb off because we’ve had enough of being scammed,by a system in which some of their sympathisers,like Thatcher and Reagan etc,have been working for their interests not ours and sold out our economies to them.You seem to be saying that economics overrule national sovereignty.In this case we’d owe them nothing because everything they’ve got has been done using our wealth not their own because they never had any remember .
You’ve also admitted that the country is populated by an Islamist enemy within made up of the immigrant Asian population many of who are born here which you’ve admitted has 'split ‘allegiances’.It’s obvious that those like Galloway are taking advantage of the situation and those ‘allegiances’ seem obvious.Anti western/US/Israeli and pro Islamist/Iranian/Pakistani/Sharia agenda etc etc.Why wouldn’t you want those groups to be repatriated together with their immigrant forebears .You’re right Pakistan has nuclear weapons but Iran doesn’t.However you missed the bit where I made a reference to our own/US strategic capabilities both nuclear and conventional.The question is why is it that neither the Taliban’s sympathisers in the region,like Pakistan,or the Iranians,seem as frightened of those capabalities as maybe they should be.Maybe that would all change with a stronger UK/US alliance in which the UK was no longer subject to the enemy within of it’s Asian Islamic population.However why is it that you seem to be trying to make a comparison,between the idea of repatriation of an immigrant community,that obviously,not surprisingly,has more allegiance to it’s homeland than here,with the unacceptable ideas of so called ‘ethnic cleansing’ or ‘internment’.
All of which seems to make a mockery of the situation in which we’ve got troops on the ground in Afghanistan dying for what . 
You’ve then asked the question why is there no third option.But you’ve also then said that there is a third option between a global free market economy or a Fordist one but you can’t tell anyone what it is because you don’t know.Seems to me like you’ve proved my argument not your own.However I don’t think that Henry Ford’s idea,of how to run a modern industrialised economy,caused any wars unlike the moneterist one being followed by Germany during the 1920’s and no surprise that it was Ford’s ideas that both the US and Germany went for after WW2 to grow their economies.Just like Britain did at least up until the late 1970’s.
Wheel Nut:
Geoff, are you a Communist or a Fascist?
As I’ve said before they are the same thing and I’m neither.
Carryfast:
You seem to have admitted that your idea would need to continue the present situation,which means effectively putting our own economic interests aside,in favour of countries like China.All because you’re scared of the potential threat posed by China if we were to tell them to zb off because we’ve had enough of being scammed,by a system in which some of their sympathisers,like Thatcher and Reagan etc,have been working for their interests not ours and sold out our economies to them.You seem to be saying that economics overrule national sovereignty.In this case we’d owe them nothing because everything they’ve got has been done using our wealth not their own because they never had any remember
Rubbish. I’ve said nor seemed to say anything of the sort. But you appear to be struggling to accept that any view different to your own must inevitably be a pro Thatcherite/Reganite, anti Fordist agenda, when it’s nothing of the sort. It’s simply common sense.
Carryfast:
You’ve also admitted that the country is populated by an Islamist enemy within made up of the immigrant Asian population many of who are born here which you’ve admitted has 'split ‘allegiances’.
I said nothing about Islamists being any sort of enemy either born within this country or without. I simply stated the obvious and publicly acknowledged facts.
Carryfast:
Why wouldn’t you want those groups to be repatriated together with their immigrant forebears
Now you ARE advocating forced repatriation of British born Islamists. Why are you so scared of people born in this country, that you’re prepared to exclude them from the society in which they were born?
Carryfast:
You’re right Pakistan has nuclear weapons but Iran doesn’t.However you missed the bit where I made a reference to our own/US strategic capabilities both nuclear and conventional.
This diatribe is becoming more insane with every new sentence. Now you’re advocating the threat of nuclear aggression against countries that don’t meet your racist, bigoted, redneck ramblings. We’re already involved in one of those wars and it’s not only bleeding our economy dry, but it’s claiming the cream of our youth at the same time!
Carryfast:
However why is it that you seem to be trying to make a comparison,between the idea of repatriation of an immigrant community,that obviously,not surprisingly,has more allegiance to it’s homeland than here,with the unacceptable ideas of so called ‘ethnic cleansing’ or ‘internment’.
Because they are NOT an immigrant community! They are British born which makes them British by birth. You are saying these people should be sent anywhere but shouldn’t be allowed to stay here. This minority of British citizens should be removed on your say so, so your deluded 60’s economy can be recreated? That is ethnic cleansing! (And I might add, illegal incitement of racial hatred.)
Carryfast:
You’ve then asked the question why is there no third option.But you’ve also then said that there is a third option between a global free market economy or a Fordist one but you can’t tell anyone what it is because you don’t know.
I said there must be a third way. Obviously the current economic model is flawed. But so is yours. Our options are to find a better way in the future. I don’t know what other options are possible, but plain common sense says there needs to be a search for a better way. But I’m not an economist, and plainly, neither are you!
Carryfast:
I don’t think that Henry Ford’s idea, of how to run a modern industrialised economy, caused any wars …
But the US economy for most of the late 60’s and early 70’s, was almost entirely created by the military-industrial complex created by the Vietnam and Korean wars. But those are inconvenient facts that you won’t acknowledge because they don’t fit in with your deluded economic obsession.
Try reading Eisenhower’s farewell speech to the nation on the 17th January 1961, in which he warned of the dangers of an over bearing military-industrial complex. He was effectively ignored by your hero American presidents, which led us, amongst other things to the position we find ourselves in today!
Bush Snr and his idiot son, tried the same thing in two Iraqi wars, but you see, times had changed… and this time, war amongst other things, brought recession. Just as it has in this country once Blair decided to jump on the band wagon.
If you think Henry Ford’s model of economic expansion and technological progress based on mass production, is still relevant today, you’re quite simply madder than a box of frogs. Let’s all drive Trabants…
And finally, Germany did not follow a Fordist economic model. Before Ford was Taylor who espousd a a technique of labor discipline and workplace organisation, based upon supposedly scientific studies of human efficiency and incentive systems. It attracted European intellectuals – especially in Germany and Italy. The appeal of Fordism in Europe was that it promised to sweep away all the archaic residues of pre-capitalist society by subordinating the economy, society and even human personality to the strict criteria of technical rationality.
George Orwell would have loved you.
for the love of god, will somebody ■■■■ the bloody fish
stevieboy308:
for the love of god, will somebody [zb] the bloody fish
EastAnglianTrucker:
Happydaze:
Carryfast:
Happydaze:
EastAnglianTrucker:
Carryfast:
If it was ‘spot on’ both ours and the US economy would be in better shape than they both stood between 1960-1970.I’m not sure that’s a given Carryfast. There are simply too many imponderables at play since the 60’s to be able to make such a sweeping claim.
I tend to think some of the prime reasons both we and the Americans are in the [zb] we’re in is due to the sub prime situation in the States, along with vastly increased personal and government borrowing throughout Europe, but especially by Blair & Brown’s governments. And the highly predictable rise of competitiveness in the BRIC countries.
There are many, many other influencing factors, both domestic and international, but not having a protected economy isn’t one of them.
Exactly. Plus those imponderables and influencing factors have changed and evolved beyond recognition since then.
Such as
7 Billion people on the planet maybe? Communications, the “green” lobby, media in all its forms, social engineering, globalisation, PR, Advertising, technology, microchips, miniaturisation, snooping, information harvesting, medicine, Fleetwood-bloody-Mac…
Sorry Carryfast, but he’s right, and he’s only mentioned a few… although Fleetwood-bloody-Mac may have had a limited effect!
You make it sound as if periods of economic activity are separate blocks that in no way overlap. They’re not and never can be, any economic activity is by definition influenced and to a great extent affected by the evolving societies and political forces at play at more than one single period in time. For example, and I apologise in advance for using this specific one, but would the German economy be as strong today, without the investment of the Marshall plan allied to the national desire of the Germans to regain respectability in the eyes of the world? And that only takes into account two factors in the way Germany’s industrial power has been rebuilt.
Equally, or better to say another example would be the effect of the intransigence of British unions during the 70’s, allied to weak and ineffective management in British industry, being influencing factors in the current dearth of any seriously sustainable, and British owned manufacturing in this country today.
You can heap the blame on Thatcher all you like, but her actions were as a direct result of the situation she and her government found themselves in during her crusades. And on to Blair and his love of her doctrine… they all have a ■■■■■■■■■■ effect.
And rightly or wrongly, we simply cannot go back no matter how attractive your views of those times were. We can only go forward, and try to avoid the obvious pitfalls where possible, learn from more dynamic societies - not just the BRIC economies, and be far more imaginative in our thinking.
A good start would be to jolt the political staus quo into some sort of awareness that the public, and in reality it has to be the low paid and breadline working classes that demand change. It is simply ludicrous for the government to be paying tax credits to low paid workers because their wages are simply too low. It is the government’s job, in fact their obligation to raise the standards of pay among the lowest paid in our society. But we all see the rich getting richer and the poor paying the price.
I fear it would end in disaster as I don’t believe the people holding the levers of power are ever likely to relinquish control. Which doesn’t leave many, or any, very palatable alternatives…
I couldn’t agree more. I must qualify this by saying that I haven’t read any replies, I’m just having a quick look and going to bed (long week!), but I couldn’t and wouldn’t add anything to this. EastAnglianTrucker, you got it in one. 
EastAnglianTrucker:
Carryfast:
You seem to have admitted that your idea would need to continue the present situation,which means effectively putting our own economic interests aside,in favour of countries like China.All because you’re scared of the potential threat posed by China if we were to tell them to zb off because we’ve had enough of being scammed,by a system in which some of their sympathisers,like Thatcher and Reagan etc,have been working for their interests not ours and sold out our economies to them.You seem to be saying that economics overrule national sovereignty.In this case we’d owe them nothing because everything they’ve got has been done using our wealth not their own because they never had any rememberRubbish. I’ve said nor seemed to say anything of the sort. But you appear to be struggling to accept that any view different to your own must inevitably be a pro Thatcherite/Reganite, anti Fordist agenda, when it’s nothing of the sort. It’s simply common sense.
Carryfast:
You’ve also admitted that the country is populated by an Islamist enemy within made up of the immigrant Asian population many of who are born here which you’ve admitted has 'split ‘allegiances’.I said nothing about Islamists being any sort of enemy either born within this country or without. I simply stated the obvious and publicly acknowledged facts.
Carryfast:
Why wouldn’t you want those groups to be repatriated together with their immigrant forebearsNow you ARE advocating forced repatriation of British born Islamists. Why are you so scared of people born in this country, that you’re prepared to exclude them from the society in which they were born?
Carryfast:
You’re right Pakistan has nuclear weapons but Iran doesn’t.However you missed the bit where I made a reference to our own/US strategic capabilities both nuclear and conventional.This diatribe is becoming more insane with every new sentence. Now you’re advocating the threat of nuclear aggression against countries that don’t meet your racist, bigoted, redneck ramblings. We’re already involved in one of those wars and it’s not only bleeding our economy dry, but it’s claiming the cream of our youth at the same time!
Carryfast:
However why is it that you seem to be trying to make a comparison,between the idea of repatriation of an immigrant community,that obviously,not surprisingly,has more allegiance to it’s homeland than here,with the unacceptable ideas of so called ‘ethnic cleansing’ or ‘internment’.Because they are NOT an immigrant community! They are British born which makes them British by birth. You are saying these people should be sent anywhere but shouldn’t be allowed to stay here. This minority of British citizens should be removed on your say so, so your deluded 60’s economy can be recreated? That is ethnic cleansing! (And I might add, illegal incitement of racial hatred.)
Carryfast:
You’ve then asked the question why is there no third option.But you’ve also then said that there is a third option between a global free market economy or a Fordist one but you can’t tell anyone what it is because you don’t know.I said there must be a third way. Obviously the current economic model is flawed. But so is yours. Our options are to find a better way in the future. I don’t know what other options are possible, but plain common sense says there needs to be a search for a better way. But I’m not an economist, and plainly, neither are you!
Carryfast:
I don’t think that Henry Ford’s idea, of how to run a modern industrialised economy, caused any wars …But the US economy for most of the late 60’s and early 70’s, was almost entirely created by the military-industrial complex created by the Vietnam and Korean wars. But those are inconvenient facts that you won’t acknowledge because they don’t fit in with your deluded economic obsession.
Try reading Eisenhower’s farewell speech to the nation on the 17th January 1961, in which he warned of the dangers of an over bearing military-industrial complex. He was effectively ignored by your hero American presidents, which led us, amongst other things to the position we find ourselves in today!
Bush Snr and his idiot son, tried the same thing in two Iraqi wars, but you see, times had changed… and this time, war amongst other things, brought recession. Just as it has in this country once Blair decided to jump on the band wagon.
If you think Henry Ford’s model of economic expansion and technological progress based on mass production, is still relevant today, you’re quite simply madder than a box of frogs. Let’s all drive Trabants…
And finally, Germany did not follow a Fordist economic model. Before Ford was Taylor who espousd a a technique of labor discipline and workplace organisation, based upon supposedly scientific studies of human efficiency and incentive systems. It attracted European intellectuals – especially in Germany and Italy. The appeal of Fordism in Europe was that it promised to sweep away all the archaic residues of pre-capitalist society by subordinating the economy, society and even human personality to the strict criteria of technical rationality.
George Orwell would have loved you.
While i am enjoying you ripping him a new one, just ignore him. It will be a fine day when Rikki puts “do not feed the troll” under his name.
The guy’s a tool. He consistently derails threads to defecate his verbal rantings about black and white tv’s, leather padded jackets, Thatcher, Unions, Bankers and anything else he can think of. When he is loosing his battle on the basis of him talking utter and complete drivel he then attempts to state you have made comments or incited notations when you clearly have not.
It’s far more enjoyable sucking on a dog stool than feeding this troll
Spacemonkeypg:
It’s far more enjoyable sucking on a dog stool than feeding this troll
Very eloquently put!
EastAnglianTrucker:
Carryfast:
You seem to have admitted that your idea would need to continue the present situation,which means effectively putting our own economic interests aside,in favour of countries like China.All because you’re scared of the potential threat posed by China if we were to tell them to zb off because we’ve had enough of being scammed,by a system in which some of their sympathisers,like Thatcher and Reagan etc,have been working for their interests not ours and sold out our economies to them.You seem to be saying that economics overrule national sovereignty.In this case we’d owe them nothing because everything they’ve got has been done using our wealth not their own because they never had any rememberRubbish. I’ve said nor seemed to say anything of the sort. But you appear to be struggling to accept that any view different to your own must inevitably be a pro Thatcherite/Reganite, anti Fordist agenda, when it’s nothing of the sort. It’s simply common sense.
Carryfast:
You’ve also admitted that the country is populated by an Islamist enemy within made up of the immigrant Asian population many of who are born here which you’ve admitted has 'split ‘allegiances’.I said nothing about Islamists being any sort of enemy either born within this country or without. I simply stated the obvious and publicly acknowledged facts.
Carryfast:
Why wouldn’t you want those groups to be repatriated together with their immigrant forebearsNow you ARE advocating forced repatriation of British born Islamists. Why are you so scared of people born in this country, that you’re prepared to exclude them from the society in which they were born?
Carryfast:
You’re right Pakistan has nuclear weapons but Iran doesn’t.However you missed the bit where I made a reference to our own/US strategic capabilities both nuclear and conventional.This diatribe is becoming more insane with every new sentence. Now you’re advocating the threat of nuclear aggression against countries that don’t meet your racist, bigoted, redneck ramblings. We’re already involved in one of those wars and it’s not only bleeding our economy dry, but it’s claiming the cream of our youth at the same time!
Carryfast:
However why is it that you seem to be trying to make a comparison,between the idea of repatriation of an immigrant community,that obviously,not surprisingly,has more allegiance to it’s homeland than here,with the unacceptable ideas of so called ‘ethnic cleansing’ or ‘internment’.Because they are NOT an immigrant community! They are British born which makes them British by birth. You are saying these people should be sent anywhere but shouldn’t be allowed to stay here. This minority of British citizens should be removed on your say so, so your deluded 60’s economy can be recreated? That is ethnic cleansing! (And I might add, illegal incitement of racial hatred.)
Carryfast:
You’ve then asked the question why is there no third option.But you’ve also then said that there is a third option between a global free market economy or a Fordist one but you can’t tell anyone what it is because you don’t know.I said there must be a third way. Obviously the current economic model is flawed. But so is yours. Our options are to find a better way in the future. I don’t know what other options are possible, but plain common sense says there needs to be a search for a better way. But I’m not an economist, and plainly, neither are you!
Carryfast:
I don’t think that Henry Ford’s idea, of how to run a modern industrialised economy, caused any wars …But the US economy for most of the late 60’s and early 70’s, was almost entirely created by the military-industrial complex created by the Vietnam and Korean wars. But those are inconvenient facts that you won’t acknowledge because they don’t fit in with your deluded economic obsession.
Try reading Eisenhower’s farewell speech to the nation on the 17th January 1961, in which he warned of the dangers of an over bearing military-industrial complex. He was effectively ignored by your hero American presidents, which led us, amongst other things to the position we find ourselves in today!
Bush Snr and his idiot son, tried the same thing in two Iraqi wars, but you see, times had changed… and this time, war amongst other things, brought recession. Just as it has in this country once Blair decided to jump on the band wagon.
If you think Henry Ford’s model of economic expansion and technological progress based on mass production, is still relevant today, you’re quite simply madder than a box of frogs. Let’s all drive Trabants…
And finally, Germany did not follow a Fordist economic model. Before Ford was Taylor who espousd a a technique of labor discipline and workplace organisation, based upon supposedly scientific studies of human efficiency and incentive systems. It attracted European intellectuals – especially in Germany and Italy. The appeal of Fordism in Europe was that it promised to sweep away all the archaic residues of pre-capitalist society by subordinating the economy, society and even human personality to the strict criteria of technical rationality.
George Orwell would have loved you.
So what you’re saying is that all those civilian products,that were turned out by the US industrial system,post Korean War up to the time of Reaganomics,were the result of money earn’t from production for the military.Not,as I’m saying, vice versa in that the US military was built on the money earn’t through from it’s civilian industrial machine and it’s the loss of that civilian industrial capability that has caused the massive hole in the US military budget and finaces now.But where do you get any connection between the products turned out by Fordist economic system in the US,especially that of the 1960’s, and the zb Trabants that were turned out by the Communist system in East Germany .
However I’ve not made any comments concerning any so called Fordist system that had any connection to ‘sweeping away’ any ‘pre capitalist system’ that ‘subordintaed’ any economy,society,or human personality.My comments were related to the system as it applied in the US economy up to the point where Reaganomics took over and the post war German economic miracle followed the idea of Fordism as applied in the US more than any bs concerning human efficiency and ‘incentives’.It was all about wages and spending power being used to fuel the demand,for the purchase of products,manufactured mainly by the domestic industries.Which produced the typical loop and economic growth based on high wages=high demand=high employment=higher wages=higher demand=higher employment so on and so forth.
You also seem to be saying that any strategic threat from an Islamic bomb wether Iranian or Pakistani shouldn’t be met by the threat of a strategic threat in return whereas that was exactly the type of method used to meet the same type of threat throughout the Cold War.
You’ve asked the question as to my comments related to Islamic extremists living here wether born here or not and why I think they should be sent back together with their forebears to where their forebears originate from and why am I so ‘scared of them’.Luckily for me,so far,I haven’t had any family members who’ve been any of their victims.Unlike others who haven’t been so lucky.I really can’t see the point in us sending troops out to die in Afghanistan when the enemy is already here.
Carryfast:
EastAnglianTrucker:
Carryfast:
You seem to have admitted that your idea would need to continue the present situation,which means effectively putting our own economic interests aside,in favour of countries like China.All because you’re scared of the potential threat posed by China if we were to tell them to zb off because we’ve had enough of being scammed,by a system in which some of their sympathisers,like Thatcher and Reagan etc,have been working for their interests not ours and sold out our economies to them.You seem to be saying that economics overrule national sovereignty.In this case we’d owe them nothing because everything they’ve got has been done using our wealth not their own because they never had any rememberRubbish. I’ve said nor seemed to say anything of the sort. But you appear to be struggling to accept that any view different to your own must inevitably be a pro Thatcherite/Reganite, anti Fordist agenda, when it’s nothing of the sort. It’s simply common sense.
Carryfast:
You’ve also admitted that the country is populated by an Islamist enemy within made up of the immigrant Asian population many of who are born here which you’ve admitted has 'split ‘allegiances’.I said nothing about Islamists being any sort of enemy either born within this country or without. I simply stated the obvious and publicly acknowledged facts.
Carryfast:
Why wouldn’t you want those groups to be repatriated together with their immigrant forebearsNow you ARE advocating forced repatriation of British born Islamists. Why are you so scared of people born in this country, that you’re prepared to exclude them from the society in which they were born?
Carryfast:
You’re right Pakistan has nuclear weapons but Iran doesn’t.However you missed the bit where I made a reference to our own/US strategic capabilities both nuclear and conventional.This diatribe is becoming more insane with every new sentence. Now you’re advocating the threat of nuclear aggression against countries that don’t meet your racist, bigoted, redneck ramblings. We’re already involved in one of those wars and it’s not only bleeding our economy dry, but it’s claiming the cream of our youth at the same time!
Carryfast:
However why is it that you seem to be trying to make a comparison,between the idea of repatriation of an immigrant community,that obviously,not surprisingly,has more allegiance to it’s homeland than here,with the unacceptable ideas of so called ‘ethnic cleansing’ or ‘internment’.Because they are NOT an immigrant community! They are British born which makes them British by birth. You are saying these people should be sent anywhere but shouldn’t be allowed to stay here. This minority of British citizens should be removed on your say so, so your deluded 60’s economy can be recreated? That is ethnic cleansing! (And I might add, illegal incitement of racial hatred.)
Carryfast:
You’ve then asked the question why is there no third option.But you’ve also then said that there is a third option between a global free market economy or a Fordist one but you can’t tell anyone what it is because you don’t know.I said there must be a third way. Obviously the current economic model is flawed. But so is yours. Our options are to find a better way in the future. I don’t know what other options are possible, but plain common sense says there needs to be a search for a better way. But I’m not an economist, and plainly, neither are you!
Carryfast:
I don’t think that Henry Ford’s idea, of how to run a modern industrialised economy, caused any wars …But the US economy for most of the late 60’s and early 70’s, was almost entirely created by the military-industrial complex created by the Vietnam and Korean wars. But those are inconvenient facts that you won’t acknowledge because they don’t fit in with your deluded economic obsession.
Try reading Eisenhower’s farewell speech to the nation on the 17th January 1961, in which he warned of the dangers of an over bearing military-industrial complex. He was effectively ignored by your hero American presidents, which led us, amongst other things to the position we find ourselves in today!
Bush Snr and his idiot son, tried the same thing in two Iraqi wars, but you see, times had changed… and this time, war amongst other things, brought recession. Just as it has in this country once Blair decided to jump on the band wagon.
If you think Henry Ford’s model of economic expansion and technological progress based on mass production, is still relevant today, you’re quite simply madder than a box of frogs. Let’s all drive Trabants…
And finally, Germany did not follow a Fordist economic model. Before Ford was Taylor who espousd a a technique of labor discipline and workplace organisation, based upon supposedly scientific studies of human efficiency and incentive systems. It attracted European intellectuals – especially in Germany and Italy. The appeal of Fordism in Europe was that it promised to sweep away all the archaic residues of pre-capitalist society by subordinating the economy, society and even human personality to the strict criteria of technical rationality.
George Orwell would have loved you.
So what you’re saying is that all those civilian products,that were turned out by the US industrial system,post Korean War up to the time of Reaganomics,were the result of money earn’t from production for the military.Not,as I’m saying, vice versa in that the US military was built on the money earn’t through from it’s civilian industrial machine and it’s the loss of that civilian industrial capability that has caused the massive hole in the US military budget and finaces now.But where do you get any connection between the products turned out by Fordist economic system in the US,especially that of the 1960’s, and the zb Trabants that were turned out by the Communist system in East Germany
However I’ve not made any comments concerning any so called Fordist system that had any connection to ‘sweeping away’ any ‘pre capitalist system’ that ‘subordintaed’ any economy,society,or human personality.My comments were related to the system as it applied in the US economy up to the point where Reaganomics took over and the post war German economic miracle followed the idea of Fordism as applied in the US more than any bs concerning human efficiency and ‘incentives’.It was all about wages and spending power being used to fuel the demand,for the purchase of products,manufactured mainly by the domestic industries.Which produced the typical loop and economic growth based on high wages=high demand=high employment=higher wages=higher demand=higher employment so on and so forth.
You also seem to be saying that any strategic threat from an Islamic bomb wether Iranian or Pakistani shouldn’t be met by the threat of a strategic threat in return whereas that was exactly the type of method used to meet the same type of threat throughout the Cold War.
You’ve asked the question as to my comments related to Islamic extremists living here wether born here or not and why I think they should be sent back together with their forebears to where their forebears originate from and why am I so ‘scared of them’.Luckily for me,so far,I haven’t had any family members who’ve been any of their victims.Unlike others who haven’t been so lucky.I really can’t see the point in us sending troops out to die in Afghanistan when the enemy is already here.
Do you get off on typing “Fordist”?
I think I’m a Fordist too, I’d say I’ve had fifty or sixty of them over the years. Do you want to buy a MK1 ■■■■■■ van?
I want to buy a mark 1 ■■■■■■ van 150 quid tops.
kr79:
I want to buy a mark 1 ■■■■■■ van 150 quid tops.
youtube.com/watch?v=oZG51smrWOE 
They might just take $ 420,000 cash.
Let me ask my earlier question a slightly different way. Was Henry Ford a ■■■■ Supporter?
I ask these questions just to see where the bright ones loyalties lie, he said he is neither Fascist or Communist. So I found the newspaper where he gets many of his copy and paste ideas from, here is a sample from a good Marxist newspaper of the USA booming.
75 years ago: American workers continue sit-down strike wave
A new sit-down strike shut down all nine Chevrolet plants in Michigan and Ohio on April 2, 1937. A day earlier, on April 1, a number of sit-down strikes had broken broke out in General Motors owned or controlled facilities, resulting in the closure of other production facilities relying on striking plants. The strikes were provoked by the management refusing to deal with United Automobile Workers (UAW) union in accordance with the agreement struck between the two parties in March. Chevrolet’s parent company, General Motors charged the UAW with failing to control the workforce, citing some 30 wildcat sit-down strikes by GM workers since the provisional agreement to end the first wave of Flint sit-down strikes on March 12.
Important negotiations were also under way between the UAW and Chrysler, where a March sit-down strike had pushed the city of Detroit to the verge of a general strike. “The discussion, as might have been expected, turned on the ability of the union to continue to control its members,” the London Times explained. “Mr. Chrysler is well supported in his view that any agreement with the union, may be useless, since it appears unable to force its own members to comply with an agreement already reached with another company.”
On April 4, when representatives of the Chrysler car corporation complained about the activities of socialists within the unions’ ranks, CIO head John L. Lewis pledged to “purge” those activists. On April 8, the two sides reached an agreement that established the UAW as the official union of its members, but not all Chrysler workers.
The sit-down strike wave continued. “Reports of such strikes, great and small, come from all parts of the country, and with them stories of violence,” according to the Times. In New England on April 3 jewelery workers began sit-down strikes in Rhode Island. On the same day in Lewiston, Maine police ordered the arrest of 20 strikers held responsible for strikes in shoe factories in Lewiston and Auburn. Also on April 3, Ford workers struck in Kansas City, Missouri.
By the way. I worked in Germany in the late 90’s and the wages were only average, they seem to have taken a massive downturn since those heady days of 3DM to the £