Why are right wingers more generous?

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

I've noticed that the lounge legends talk a lot about wealth distribution (socialism) but in practice it's the right wingers that are more generous.

 

This is of no surprise to me.

 

Good God, another load of fishing nonsense.

[dune]

Good God, another load of fishing nonsense.

 

Although it's not scientific, there is a correlation between those who have sponsored various forum members and a more right wing outlook. Yes there have been notable exceptions, but in the main right wingers on the SWF are more generous.

[badgerx16]

Obviously the Labour thickos didn't see it.

 

OK, let's put it another way - how many Conservative MPs in 2004, especially the front benchers, opposed the knighthood ? How may concurred ? How much of the media questioned the logic ? If the didn't argue against it, does this make them Tory 'thickos'.

[buctootim]

Although it's not scientific, there is a correlation between those who have sponsored various forum members and a more right wing outlook. Yes there have been notable exceptions, but in the main right wingers on the SWF are more generous.

 

Dune, on the assumption you are making a serious point, how do you know? I, for example, donate anonymously. Im also more likely to support causes I know personally and have supported long term. Maybe its just that the right wingers occasionally support causes on SWF because they dont have regular commitments elsewhere and include their name against the donation in order to get SWF kudos? Or maybe left /right has absolutely nothing to do with it?

[dune]

OK, let's put it another way - how many Conservative MPs in 2004, especially the front benchers, opposed the knighthood ? How may concurred ? How much of the media questioned the logic ? If the didn't argue against it, does this make them Tory 'thickos'.

 

The bust happened on Labours watch, surely this makes makes them more responsible, would you not agree weasel?

[trousers]

Are people suggesting that if this had happened on the Tory's watch then Labourites wouldn't be banging on about how badly they had handled the situation?

 

Both 'sides' are as bad as eachother IMO.

[suewhistle]

From a report on charitable giving in the UK:

 

'donor households towards the lower end of the expenditure distribution tend to give away more of their money to charity than donor households in the higher expenditure percentiles. On this measure, poorer donor households are more generous than richer

donor households, those in the bottom decile donating approximately 3% of their budget compared with those in the top decile donating roughly 1%.'

[Lord Duckhunter]

Wrong. The de-regulation of the banking system, that led directly to the credit crunch, goes back to the 80s and the enthusiastic political adoption of Chicago School economics (notably Milton Friedman - the economic guru of Thatcher and Reagan). This is what led directly to the destruction of the building societies as mutuals, and ultimately to the property bubbles that have been behind successive collapses. Spain is merely an extreme example - a property boom, created by a de-regulated banking system gone bananas. Remember that the credit crunch was also caused by a fatal combination of a property boom and absolutely no regulation of the banking system. The failure of unfettered capitalism embodied.

 

 

 

The Building Societies' members voted to demutualise. The bar was set quite high with 75% of members having to vote in favour, but the people were seduced by greed and "free" money.

 

How can it be "unfettered capitalism" if the banks were nationalised. Capitalism wont work if failed business' are bailed out.

 

Labour certainly had to take their share of the blame, particulary Brown and the now shadow Chancellor Balls.The offical report by Lord Turner into RBS said lax regulation of the City contributed to the collapse of Royal Bank of Scotland and allowed the former bosses of the bank, including Sir Fred Goodwin, to walk away without being disciplined .He said the regulator had been encouraged to take a "light touch" by Labour and that its creator, Gordon Brown, had left it with a "structural flaw". Brown made a terrible error in taking banking regulation away from the Bank of England in 1997 and hand it to the FSA.

[Seaford Saint]

The Building Societies' members voted to demutualise. The bar was set quite high with 75% of members having to vote in favour, but the people were seduced by greed and "free" money.

 

How can it be "unfettered capitalism" if the banks were nationalised. Capitalism wont work if failed business' are bailed out.

 

Labour certainly had to take their share of the blame, particulary Brown and the now shadow Chancellor Balls.The offical report by Lord Turner into RBS said lax regulation of the City contributed to the collapse of Royal Bank of Scotland and allowed the former bosses of the bank, including Sir Fred Goodwin, to walk away without being disciplined .He said the regulator had been encouraged to take a "light touch" by Labour and that its creator, Gordon Brown, had left it with a "structural flaw". Brown made a terrible error in taking banking regulation away from the Bank of England in 1997 and hand it to the FSA.

 

From memory Labour decided they needed to do this to be electable...the more they talked of overseeing the banks the more unelectable they were (in their eyes but probably borne out by research) . Guess which party opposed regulation of the banks? Yep those lovely Tory boys.

[badgerx16]

The bust happened on Labours watch, surely this makes makes them more responsible, would you not agree weasel?

 

The 'bust' was a GLOBAL phenomenon, fuelled as much by the bubble in the US housing market as by the arcane derivatives trading and incestuous repackaging and reselling of 'debt as an asset'. It would have been beyond the control of whoever was in Government. There are possibly arguments about whether the economy could have been managed better in terms of it's ability to ride the storm, but they are moot, as I doubt Tory financial policy towards the City would have differed much from the Nu-Lab 'light touch' - the illusion of easy money would have been too tempting.

[trousers]

The 'bust' was a GLOBAL phenomenon, fuelled as much by the bubble in the US housing market as by the arcane derivatives trading and incestuous repackaging and reselling of 'debt as an asset'. It would have been beyond the control of whoever was in Government. There are possibly arguments about whether the economy could have been managed better in terms of it's ability to ride the storm, but they are moot, as I doubt Tory financial policy towards the City would have differed much from the Nu-Lab 'light touch' - the illusion of easy money would have been too tempting.

 

Indeed. But whichever party had been in opposition at the time you can bet they would have endeavoured to have laid a portion of the blame the other party....

[badgerx16]

Indeed. But whichever party had been in opposition at the time you can bet they would have endeavoured to have laid a portion of the blame the other party....

 

Why bother trying to have original ideas when you can get elected by merely slagging off the other side. As you said earlier, all as bad as each other.

[Lord Duckhunter]

The 'bust' was a GLOBAL phenomenon, fuelled as much by the bubble in the US housing market as by the arcane derivatives trading and incestuous repackaging and reselling of 'debt as an asset'. It would have been beyond the control of whoever was in Government. There are possibly arguments about whether the economy could have been managed better in terms of it's ability to ride the storm, but they are moot, as I doubt Tory financial policy towards the City would have differed much from the Nu-Lab 'light touch' - the illusion of easy money would have been too tempting.

 

And the next one will be a European phenomenon. Not that it will stop the ridiculous Ed Balls claiming it was "made in Downing Street". It's funny how all Labour's busts are global and nothing to do with their policies and all Tory ones are "made in Downing Street".

 

Labour left us in a bad position to deal with a global bust, when it came. They can not wash their hands of everything, particulary banking regulation. Only 3 politicans were named and criticised in the report into RBS, Gordon Brown, Ed Balls and Tony Blair.

 

Labour benefitted from the ERM fiasco, despite the fact they were enthusiastic supporters of it, and would have taken us in with the same result that cost the Torys so badly. They were in opposition at the time, so the buck stopped with the Tory's even though their policy were the same. Same with banking regulation, they were in charge and didn't regulate correctly so the buck stops with them.

[solentstars]

The 'bust' was a GLOBAL phenomenon, fuelled as much by the bubble in the US housing market as by the arcane derivatives trading and incestuous repackaging and reselling of 'debt as an asset'. It would have been beyond the control of whoever was in Government. There are possibly arguments about whether the economy could have been managed better in terms of it's ability to ride the storm, but they are moot, as I doubt Tory financial policy towards the City would have differed much from the Nu-Lab 'light touch' - the illusion of easy money would have been too tempting.

agree and started under the reagan and thatcher years when greed was good and giving more and more to the very rich and followed by thatchers son blair but lets wait for the torys nutty right blame the worldwide slump on labour and not the bankers of the world who are getting the bailouts .

[Thedelldays]

agree and started under the reagan and thatcher years when greed was good and giving more and more to the very rich and followed by thatchers son blair but lets wait for the torys nutty right blame the worldwide slump on labour and not the bankers of the world who are getting the bailouts .

 

I bet you voted for blairs labour

[eurosaint]

Wrong. The de-regulation of the banking system, that led directly to the credit crunch, goes back to the 80s and the enthusiastic political adoption of Chicago School economics (notably Milton Friedman - the economic guru of Thatcher and Reagan). This is what led directly to the destruction of the building societies as mutuals, and ultimately to the property bubbles that have been behind successive collapses. Spain is merely an extreme example - a property boom, created by a de-regulated banking system gone bananas. Remember that the credit crunch was also caused by a fatal combination of a property boom and absolutely no regulation of the banking system. The failure of unfettered capitalism embodied.

 

Labour was in power for 13 years between 1997 and 2010, did they just sit on their arses (whilst handing out knighthoods!) and totally ignore a situation which they disapproved of ??

The fact is that they cosied up to the banking fraternity because it suited them at the time, then when the going got tough, they reverted to type and started blaming everybody else !

Gordon Brown and his sidekick Mr Balls handled our economy like a couple of cocky mature students who had never had a real job in their lives (which of course is true!).

The current lot are not exactly impressive either, but given the state of things they inherited it was always going to be an uphill struggle !

[Ohio Saint]

I'm not even going to reply to this moronic trolling thread.

 

 

 

 

 

oops!

[saintfully]

And the next one will be a European phenomenon. Not that it will stop the ridiculous Ed Balls claiming it was "made in Downing Street". It's funny how all Labour's busts are global and nothing to do with their policies and all Tory ones are "made in Downing Street".

 

Labour left us in a bad position to deal with a global bust, when it came. They can not wash their hands of everything, particulary banking regulation. Only 3 politicans were named and criticised in the report into RBS, Gordon Brown, Ed Balls and Tony Blair.

 

Labour benefitted from the ERM fiasco, despite the fact they were enthusiastic supporters of it, and would have taken us in with the same result that cost the Torys so badly. They were in opposition at the time, so the buck stopped with the Tory's even though their policy were the same. Same with banking regulation, they were in charge and didn't regulate correctly so the buck stops with them.

 

The fact remains that whichever UK party is/was in power is largely irrelevant when considering current global capitalism - wouldn't you agree? The issue is actually the system itself which, as you have said, is presently socialising losses, whilst transferring wealth to the top.

 

Can't we all agree that this, at least, is wrong and not what either Lab or Con citizens have in mind when imagining an effective way to run an economy?? Its not even controversial to say that now, is it???

[Verbal]

Labour was in power for 13 years between 1997 and 2010, did they just sit on their arses (whilst handing out knighthoods!) and totally ignore a situation which they disapproved of ??

The fact is that they cosied up to the banking fraternity because it suited them at the time, then when the going got tough, they reverted to type and started blaming everybody else !

Gordon Brown and his sidekick Mr Balls handled our economy like a couple of cocky mature students who had never had a real job in their lives (which of course is true!).

The current lot are not exactly impressive either, but given the state of things they inherited it was always going to be an uphill struggle !

 

If you want to play 'political point the finger' then yes, Labour should have done something about it, as should the Major government before it. If you want to figure out how it all began, why it still persists, and how possibly to get out of it, then you have to go back to the rise in the mid-70s of the Chicago School. These ideas are still very much en vogue, sadly.

[trousers]

If you want to play 'political point the finger' then yes, Labour should have done something about it, as should the Major government before it. If you want to figure out how it all began, why it still persists, and how possibly to get out of it, then you have to go back to the rise in the mid-70s of the Chicago School. These ideas are still very much en vogue, sadly.

 

There was a BBC documentary about 6 months ago - a Robert Peston effort IIRC - where he attempted to trace back the uncontrollable rise of capitalism and the conclusion was that it all started with the communists in China (late 60s / early 70s I think) and their insatiable desire to out manoeuvre western economies via an extortionately cheap labour market.

 

I've probably paraphrased that badly but, it was an interesting view on the whole "how did it come about" debate.

[pap]

The idea of a working capitalist system is an illusion. You can't really say it's a stable system. Ask the people of the 1930s how well capitalism redistributed the wealth. The US embarked on massive social programmes to get out of the crap. The fabricated financial catastrophe in the Weimar Republic facilitated the rise of demagogues like Hitler (although I accept there were many other reasons). Most of Europe was embroiled in war thereafter.

 

We're once again mired in artificial crisis. Greece is furthest along. Families are putting their kids into state care because they can't afford to feed them. Parties on the extreme ends of the political spectrum are gaining traction. Any of this sound familiar?

 

Capitalism is alright as long as you're prepared to put up with world wars and global depressions. Funnily enough, it's normally a raft of socialist policies that sort it all out once the dust has settled.

[eurosaint]

If you want to play 'political point the finger' then yes, Labour should have done something about it, as should the Major government before it. If you want to figure out how it all began, why it still persists, and how possibly to get out of it, then you have to go back to the rise in the mid-70s of the Chicago School. These ideas are still very much en vogue, sadly.

You've got me there as I have never heard of the Chicago school,but I will research it and see if you have a point !

Nothing personal by the way !

[Saintandy666]

I really don't think there is much that can be done at the moment to affect anything much. In this world of global capitalism, and the decline of Britain from superpower to regional player, there isn't much we can do to influence the economy in general, especially in a worldwide recession. Yes, we can have policies which make it easier for people and the country in general, but I don't think Labour in power would have made too much difference to anything. I do think what we can do though is introduce something new to ease the pain, and also try to influence on the world stage(which is what actually matters) where we can, i.e in Europe.

[pap]

I really don't think there is much that can be done at the moment to affect anything much. In this world of global capitalism, and the decline of Britain from superpower to regional player, there isn't much we can do to influence the economy in general, especially in a worldwide recession. Yes, we can have policies which make it easier for people and the country in general, but I don't think Labour in power would have made too much difference to anything. I do think what we can do though is introduce something new to ease the pain, and also try to influence on the world stage(which is what actually matters) where we can, i.e in Europe.

 

I think you might be slightly guilty of "ordering off the menu", sir.

 

People tend to treat the current economic situation as if its some inviolable scientific proof. It really isn't. I accept that people have been using coins and gold to buy goods and services for millennia, but the roots of the modern banking system started with the formation of central banks. The formation in the Federal Reserve in the US was nothing more than daylight robbery. It placed control of the US money supply into the hands of private bankers, and for those lucky few that control it - it is a licence to print money, both literally and figuratively.

 

A couple of questions people need to ask themselves?

 

1) Who do we actually owe this money to?

2) What would really happen if we couldn't pay it back?

 

I've been wondering that ever since money lost its tangibility. Most currencies aren't actually backed with anything other than belief. There is no hoard of gold guarded by a fire-breathing dragon. At this stage, it truly is money for nothing.

 

I look at this so-called crisis in the EU, consider the fact that the continent is capable of being totally self-sufficient and idly wonder if I'm mad or everyone else is mental.

[Saintandy666]

I think you might be slightly guilty of "ordering off the menu", sir.

 

People tend to treat the current economic situation as if its some inviolable scientific proof. It really isn't. I accept that people have been using coins and gold to buy goods and services for millennia, but the roots of the modern banking system started with the formation of central banks. The formation in the Federal Reserve in the US was nothing more than daylight robbery. It placed control of the US money supply into the hands of private bankers, and for those lucky few that control it - it is a licence to print money, both literally and figuratively.

 

A couple of questions people need to ask themselves?

 

1) Who do we actually owe this money to?

2) What would really happen if we couldn't pay it back?

 

I've been wondering that ever since money lost its tangibility. Most currencies aren't actually backed with anything other than belief. There is no hoard of gold guarded by a fire-breathing dragon. At this stage, it truly is money for nothing.

 

I look at this so-called crisis in the EU, consider the fact that the continent is capable of being totally self-sufficient and idly wonder if I'm mad or everyone else is mental.

 

You make valid points! I am guilty of seeing it through the prism of the current system, but I really do not see a global change happening soon, the big players wouldn't allow it. I could be wrong, but if I'm not this problem has to be solved within the current system. But if the current system is defunct as you argue, then what can we really do?

 

We need capitalism, but a new capitalism. Capitalism is the best system, but it's also very flexible and can evolve. More regulation on certain sectors which were allowed to get madly out of control in the current system would go a long way.

 

And you're right, the EU has a hugely versatile economy and it's massive too. On the scale of the USA.

Edited 12 June, 2012 by Saintandy666

[Hamilton Saint]

I've noticed that the lounge legends talk a lot about wealth distribution (socialism) but in practice it's the right wingers that are more generous.

This is of no surprise to me.

 

Typical right-wing "debating" style: begin with a made-up 'factoid' (what we used to call a lie); keep repeating the lie; and, in between the repetition of the lie, insult the opponent, instead of dealing with their valid arguments.

[badgerx16]

Typical right-wing "debating" style: begin with a made-up 'factoid' (what we used to call a lie); keep repeating the lie; and, in between the repetition of the lie, insult the opponent, instead of dealing with their valid arguments.

 

At least there aren't any accompanying YouTube clips.

[bridge too far]

Interesting - and not entirely out of context

 

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100164353/why-the-right-is-turning-against-the-super-rich/

[pap]

Interesting - and not entirely out of context

 

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100164353/why-the-right-is-turning-against-the-super-rich/

 

Very good, especially the part about capitalism creating oligarchies. Working class right wingers have long been blaming their fellow citizens for our collective woes. It'll be interesting to see whether they can look up, instead of bullying those they consider below them.

 

Personally I suspect that slavish deference to their well-heeled masters might be a stumbling block, especially if they're combining their "turkeys voting for Christmas" act with a bit of kneeling.

[Seaford Saint]

Labour was in power for 13 years between 1997 and 2010, did they just sit on their arses (whilst handing out knighthoods!) and totally ignore a situation which they disapproved of ??

The fact is that they cosied up to the banking fraternity because it suited them at the time, then when the going got tough, they reverted to type and started blaming everybody else !

Gordon Brown and his sidekick Mr Balls handled our economy like a couple of cocky mature students who had never had a real job in their lives (which of course is true!).

The current lot are not exactly impressive either, but given the state of things they inherited it was always going to be an uphill struggle !

 

I think that's exactly what they did....a lot of taxable income came into the coffers....not so clever now though.