Could Gordon Brown or David Cameron Re-establish the British Empire

[weltweit]

Why don't you want Britain to fall from power and influence? Those who wield that power and influence – the likes of Thatcher, Blair or Brown, or countless unnamed business leaders – can fuck the hell off as far as I'm concerned. It isn't 'Britain' that holds power or influence, it is the rotten British elite. These people are not my friends. They are not on 'my side'.

Just to take one of your points. Unnamed business leaders. I have worked for a few and I know what they do. Business leaders who are about keeping workers in this country are doing a good thing. People need jobs and these business leaders help to create them.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Just to take one of your points. Unnamed business leaders. I have worked for a few and I know what they do. Business leaders who are about keeping workers in this country are doing a good thing. People need jobs and these business leaders help to create them.

Does that include business leaders who are jumping all around post-invasion Iraq? Within capitalist economics, the interests of the workers are often opposed to the interests of capital. It is capital we are primarily talking about here – if those business leaders were genuinely trying to keep workers in this country, they were not doing their job properly. It is the job, nay the duty, of a company's directors to maximise profit for the shareholders. Not to look after customers, nor workers, except where doing so increases profit. Improved pay and conditions since industrialisation have come as a result of pressure from below, organising unions and political parties, not as a result of the largess of directors whose only duty is to the shareholders – effectively a leaching class that makes money out of those who work by owning the means of production.

And yes I know that pension companies are major shareholders now. That doesn't change the point at all – it just means that workers are screwed over twice.

 

[weltweit]

Does that include business leaders who are jumping all around post-invasion Iraq? Within capitalist economics, the interests of the workers are often opposed to the interests of capital. It is capital we are primarily talking about here – if those business leaders were genuinely trying to keep workers in this country, they were not doing their job properly. It is the job, nay the duty, of a company's directors to maximise profit for the shareholders. Not to look after customers, nor workers, except where doing so increases profit. Improved pay and conditions since industrialisation have come as a result of pressure from below, organising unions and political parties, not as a result of the largess of directors whose only duty is to the shareholders – effectively a leaching class that makes money out of those who work by owning.

And yes I know that pension companies are major shareholders now. That doesn't change the point at all – it just means that workers are screwed over twice.

Just because the labour rate in S Korea may be lower than in Uk does not mean that shareholders would want their factory exported over there. Often the skills and experience and automation within a UK factory make it the better option.

I do not deny that a directors responsibility is to maximise returns, also that the stock market is a short term thing.

I favour the model in Germany where small and medium sized businesses are typically owned by a family and where loyalty to local workers is high, even when relocating just into Hungary can give strong wage savings.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Just because the labour rate in S Korea may be lower than in Uk does not mean that shareholders would want their factory exported over there. Often the skills and experience and automation within a UK factory make it the better option.

Yes, and? I covered this – improved pay and conditions may be necessary to maximise profits. But they are not given to maximise worker happiness except to the extent that said happiness increases profit. That was precisely my point.

I favour the model in Germany where small and medium sized businesses are typically owned by a family and where loyalty to local workers is high, even when relocating just into Hungary can give strong wage savings.

The German model is indeed an improvement. Cooperatives are an even greater improvement, and the few examples of those that there are, such as John Lewis, show that such a model can thrive in direct competition with plcs with shareholders – hardly surprising given that they have cut out the leaching shareholding class.


The worst aspect of such a system as the one we now have is that it drags ordinary people into it. However much you may consider making money out of owning to be fundamentally wrong, there is little choice given the economic system and this can be the only way to provide a reasonable pension, for instance. We are turned against each other, forced to play a small walk-on role in the capitalist game just to make ends meet. It stinks and so long as the UK is wedded to it, the rest of the world can only benefit from less UK involvement in their affairs.

 

[weltweit]

Yes, and? I covered this – improved pay and conditions may be necessary to maximise profits. But they are not given to maximise worker happiness except to the extent that said happiness increases profit. That was precisely my point.

You are trying to keep, customers, workers, unions, shareholders etc all happy and at the same time make a profit, just a bit better than it was last year. It is quite disciplined.

The German model is indeed an improvement. Cooperatives are an even greater improvement, and the few examples of those that there are, such as John Lewis, show that such a model can thrive in direct competition with plcs with shareholders – hardly surprising given that they have cut out the leaching shareholding class.

I have a high regard for Germany's small and middle sized company sector which is the engine of their economy and highly innovative. I wish we could have a government here that was supportive of such a phenomenon here in the UK.

We embraced a service economy some time back and turned our back on manufacturing, much to our detriment imho. Having said that, I am not sure what policies a government would have to follow to support small and medium sized companies.

I don't know much about co-operatives.

 

[Fullyplumped]

...Those who call radio talk shows are by and large a self-selecting bunch of reactionary idiots.

And not just those who call radio talk shows!

 

[weltweit]

The worst aspect of such a system as the one we now have is that it drags ordinary people into it. However much you may consider making money out of owning to be fundamentally wrong, there is little choice given the economic system and this can be the only way to provide a reasonable pension, for instance. We are turned against each other, forced to play a small walk-on role in the capitalist game just to make ends meet. It stinks and so long as the UK is wedded to it, the rest of the world can only benefit from less UK involvement in their affairs.

Oh, but I think we should be encouraged to start businesses. Today's small business is tommorows large employer etc ..

Matsushita Electric grew into a multinational business, employing tens of thousands, within its founder's lifetime.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

You're right that manufacturing here has declined badly. But it still iirc counts for about a third of the economy. It's much more important than banking still, which again iirc is about half that.

Problem is, once you have a bunch of shareholders, it's hard to get rid of them. The building societies that demutualised have, by and large, royally fucked up, but there appears to be no mechanism to remutualise. The only solution I see is to slowly rip up and start again – incentives to form mutuals, for instance, which can gradually replace the plcs that can't compete long term since they have an in-built competitive disadvantage – the need to pay shareholders.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Oh, but I think we should be encouraged to start businesses.

On what terms though? Start a business, then when you take on employees, you have a mechanism that brings them, all of them, into the company as partners. I'm not advocating communism here – John Lewis and the Nationwide building society are not communist institutions.

I actually thoroughly dislike the command economy model. It is stultifying. But capitalism is not the only alternative. Crucially, the alienation of capital is not the only alternative. By that I mean what we have largely now – capital exists independently of the business, and moves freely from business to business as it seeks to enlarge itself. This process is of course carried out by human beings as capital only exists in our heads, but the logic of capital dictates behaviour and of course it is those that control capital, not those who actually do and make things, who become enormously wealthy. That wealth is in effect stolen from the rest of us.

 

[weltweit]

On what terms though? Start a business, then when you take on employees, you have a mechanism that brings them, all of them, into the company as partners. I'm not advocating communism here – John Lewis and the Nationwide building society are not communist institutions.

Can you expect employees to take the same risks with their own money as the entrepreneur that started the business?

It has crossed my mind that employees could own their own business by dint of having their pension funds buy all the shares of the business.

But, pension fund managers are interested in driving down salaries because that pushes up their returns, employees (pension fund holders) would not be interested in that. And then there is the great benefit in investing your pension with the whole stock market, the benefit of risk reduction. Would the risks not be too high if one pension fund effectively owned one single company. What if they went bust?

I actually thoroughly dislike the command economy model. It is stultifying. But capitalism is not the only alternative. Crucially, the alienation of capital is not the only alternative. By that I mean what we have largely now – capital exists independently of the business, and moves freely from business to business as it seeks to enlarge itself. This process is of course carried out by human beings as capital only exists in our heads, but the logic of capital dictates behaviour and

Thing is, a listing on the stock market is a good way for founders to get their money back from a business they started. It (the stock market) is also a good mechanism for generating finance for expansion. If it was not there then who would provide the capital for growth?

of course it is those that control capital, not those who actually do and make things, who become enormously wealthy.

An Electronics engineer in Germany makes two or three times the salary of one in Britain. And there are a lot more electronics engineers in Germany.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I know that. And accountants in Germany are paid less than here. They have a better sense of what is valuable work and what isn't. I'm not talking about salaried people. I'm talking about the multi-millionaire 'investors' and bankers. The kind of scum who end up buying football clubs for a hobby.

 

[Lo Siento.]

Britain, or England, if you prefer, wasn't the only country creating colonies, oppressing indigenous peoples and generally forcing itself on other countries. France, Spain, Portugal, in fact most of Europe was at it. So why do the English have such a problem with their past?

a) the other countries on that list do have a problem with their past
b) the cost of British imperialism in both dead bodies and resources was much higher than any of the above.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

But, pension fund managers are interested in driving down salaries because that pushes up their returns, employees (pension fund holders) would not be interested in that. And then there is the great benefit in investing your pension with the whole stock market, the benefit of risk reduction. Would the risks not be too high if one pension fund effectively owned one single company. What if they went bust?

Proper social pensions are the answer to that. The current system, which forces people to rely on the vagaries of the stock market (and pay a huge cut of their savings to fund managers), stinks. Nobody can rely on a pension fund. Any day they could become as good as worthless. Any day. That's no way to run a pensions system.

You're not asking employees to risk their own money. They don't buy in any more than a John Lewis employee pays to become an employee there.

It (the stock market) is also a good mechanism for generating finance for expansion. If it was not there then who would provide the capital for growth?

We would, collectively. An independently run system of investment funds – basically, you go to a fund in your region and make your case for investment. The price paid for investment in the current system is enormous – those banker bonuses don't come from nowhere. The amount the system currently costs does not represent good value at all to those wishing to raise capital. A system of investment managed independently but funded (underwritten), yes, by us the taxpayers, would represent much better value. And there is no reason such funds couldn't be diverse in their management and ethoses – people could apply to set them up. Their aim would always be only to break even – the profits then go directly to the partners concerned (employees).

Currently we have the idiotic situation where we are giving money to the banks so that they can lend it back to us at interest. Why not cut out the middle man. A government with imagination wouldn't be temporarily nationalising banks, they'd be setting up their own competition to them. Again, the competitive advantage in not paying out such huge bonuses is significant.

 

[weltweit]

I know that. And accountants in Germany are paid less than here. They have a better sense of what is valuable work and what isn't. I'm not talking about salaried people. I'm talking about the multi-millionaire 'investors' and bankers. The kind of scum who end up buying football clubs for a hobby.

I know of quite a few British companies that are run by accountants. They are not very innovative under such control. Organic growth is often stifled compared to a company run by an engineer or even someone from sales.

As to multimillionaire investors, I assume you mean people like Warren Buffett, and George Soros. I am afraid while there is a stock market there will be people like that, people who are able to beat the odds. And there is money to be made there especially when you consider that most stock market funds do not out perform the market at all. Why their managers get paid at all I wonder about.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

As to multimillionaire investors, I assume you mean people like Warren Buffett, and George Soros. I am afraid while there is a stock market there will be people like that, people who are able to beat the odds. And there is money to be made there especially when you consider that most stock market funds do not out perform the market at all. Why their managers get paid at all I wonder about.

I basically mean anyone who makes money purely through the manipulation of capital. The rest of us really shouldn't tolerate them.

 

[Dr Jon]

I know of quite a few British companies that are run by accountants. They are not very innovative under such control. Organic growth is often stifled compared to a company run by an engineer or even someone from sales...

I worked for a hi-tech, innovative start-up that was suffocated to death by money juggling twats. Mainly because these useless, pen-pushing cunts have absolutely no idea about technology and the investment required. These jumped-up little shits seem to think that they're important, when what they should be doing is providing a service for engineers, scientists and specialists who actually know what's going on.

 

[weltweit]

Proper social pensions are the answer to that. The current system, which forces people to rely on the vagaries of the stock market (and pay a huge cut of their savings to fund managers), stinks. Nobody can rely on a pension fund. Any day they could become as good as worthless. Any day. That's no way to run a pensions system.

The government (successive govts) have been most guilty of this, the national insurance part of our taxes was not intended to be spent in the same year just like tax income. It was supposed to be set aside for pensions etc .. Now we have the population timebomb problem, because the money was not set aside. State Pensions are paid from taxation not from savings.

You're not asking employees to risk their own money. They don't buy in any more than a John Lewis employee pays to become an employee there.

So what does a John Lewis employee put in extra to any other employee which qualifies them for "extra benefits" ?

We would, collectively. An independently run system of investment funds – basically, you go to a fund in your region and make your case for investment. The price paid for investment in the current system is enormous – those banker bonuses don't come from nowhere. The amount the system currently costs does not represent good value at all to those wishing to raise capital. A system of investment managed independently but funded (underwritten), yes, by us the taxpayers, would represent much better value. And there is no reason such funds couldn't be diverse in their management and ethoses – people could apply to set them up. Their aim would always be only to break even – the profits then go directly to the partners concerned (employees).

Currently we have the idiotic situation where we are giving money to the banks so that they can lend it back to us at interest. Why not cut out the middle man. A government with imagination wouldn't be temporarily nationalising banks, they'd be setting up their own competition to them. Again, the competitive advantage in not paying out such huge bonuses is significant.

Need to think about this but its late, - perhaps in the morning.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

So what does a John Lewis employee put in extra to any other employee which qualifies them for "extra benefits" ?

It's not what the employee has put in extra but what the company hasn't given out extra in the form of shareholder dividend.

Need to think about this but its late, - perhaps in the morning.

Ok. It is indeed late. Goodnight.

 

[HobgoblinMan]

Why do the English hate themselves so much??? Silly fuckers...

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Why do the English hate themselves so much??? Silly fuckers...

That's right. The English hate themselves, that's the lesson of this thread.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

Since the colonies were at least semi-abandoned the empire has been more financial. The big financial fall comming up is the dollar crash, but our part at the centre of the banking heist/fuck-up means the average UK citizen will be footing a big bill.

 

[likesfish]

sierria leonie perfectly understandable sensible british rule more likely than a functioning democracy.

 

[phildwyer]

Neo-colonialism has all the drawbacks of colonialism and none of the advantages.

 

[weltweit]

We would, collectively. An independently run system of investment funds – basically, you go to a fund in your region and make your case for investment. The price paid for investment in the current system is enormous – those banker bonuses don't come from nowhere. The amount the system currently costs does not represent good value at all to those wishing to raise capital. A system of investment managed independently but funded (underwritten), yes, by us the taxpayers, would represent much better value. And there is no reason such funds couldn't be diverse in their management and ethoses – people could apply to set them up. Their aim would always be only to break even – the profits then go directly to the partners concerned (employees).

Currently we have the idiotic situation where we are giving money to the banks so that they can lend it back to us at interest. Why not cut out the middle man. A government with imagination wouldn't be temporarily nationalising banks, they'd be setting up their own competition to them. Again, the competitive advantage in not paying out such huge bonuses is significant.

Additional sources of funding for entrepreneurial start ups would of course be most welcome. My understanding is that German businesses get funding from banks. Then in Silicone valley US start ups get funding from venture capitalists.

But there needs to be a change of mind-set imho. As far as I understand it, a business person who has two start ups both of which failed under their belts, in Silicone valley these people are treated as experienced executives and don't have trouble raising finance for another start up. In Britain people with one failed venture behind them have trouble raising finance for another venture and are treated as bankrupts.

I think there needs to be a change in emphasis towards risk taking. We want people to start businesses, but we know that many of them will fail. This is worth it for the ones that succeed and become the employers of tommorrow.

We also need a change of emphasis about manufacturing and industry. These are not seen as exciting career options in today's service economy so the most talented people still go into banking or the law. This is wrong, manufacturing and industry can be very rewarding and exciting career choices and this needs to be recognised at university level with more people choosing engineering and engineering salaries rising to reflect the importance of engineering to the economy. The trouble is, I don't know how you raise the profile of engineering.

 

[weltweit]

I worked for a hi-tech, innovative start-up that was suffocated to death by money juggling twats. Mainly because these useless, pen-pushing cunts have absolutely no idea about technology and the investment required. These jumped-up little shits seem to think that they're important, when what they should be doing is providing a service for engineers, scientists and specialists who actually know what's going on.

You have my sympathy. I have been in a similar situation although I work in sales and marketing (with an engineering background) so I am in between the innovation of engineering and the bean counters of Finance.

A guy working for me produced a very innovative product which solved an expensive problem and went on to make piles of cash. The trouble was that none of the accountants between him and the chief executive had any idea how it worked, or for that matter what it did. Eventually the chief exec asked my guy to come to Hq and explain it to him (he was an engineer) anyhow the CEO understood the product and was then supportive but none of the people in between him and my guy had a single clue!

The thing about accountant driven engineering is that they can only mainly grow by acquisition as they stifle organic development in existing companies.

At one point I found myself working for an engineer, the tables were turned, it was very refreshing.

 

[Dr Jon]

You have my sympathy. I have been in a similar situation although I work in sales and marketing (with an engineering background) so I am in between the innovation of engineering and the bean counters of Finance.

A guy working for me produced a very innovative product which solved an expensive problem and went on to make piles of cash. The trouble was that none of the accountants between him and the chief executive had any idea how it worked, or for that matter what it did. Eventually the chief exec asked my guy to come to Hq and explain it to him (he was an engineer) anyhow the CEO understood the product and was then supportive but none of the people in between him and my guy had a single clue!

The thing about accountant driven engineering is that they can only mainly grow by acquisition as they stifle organic development in existing companies.

At one point I found myself working for an engineer, the tables were turned, it was very refreshing.

That's the big problem. Money jugglers create the illusion of profit and growth by mergers, acquisitions and financial chicanery. We can see how this turns out from the state of the World economy. It is extremely worrying that the world is largely controlled by folk who haven't a fucking clue about how things work or the implications of their ignorant decisions.

The world should be run by engineers. Just give us a specification...

 

[Fullyplumped]

But 53 Commonwealth member states do, with a combined population of nearly two billion people. Including Mozambique, which was never a British possession and which joined in 1995. Rwanda, Sudan, Algeria, Madagascar and Yemen have all applied to join the Commonwealth, and there was some interest expressed by Israel and the Palestinian National Authority. In 2006 the Commonwealth secretary-general said Israel and Palestine could join the Commonwealth.

THE UK Government yesterday welcomed Rwanda as the newest member of the Commonwealth.

The African nation, scarred by the genocide of 1994, has become the 54th member of the association after a meeting of Commonwealth leaders in Trinidad and Tobago.

A Foreign Office spokesman said: "We strongly welcome the admittance of Rwanda as the 54th member of the Commonwealth.

"Rwanda has made progress towards meeting the Commonwealth's core values in areas of democratic process, rule of law, good governance, protection of human rights, and equality of opportunity and economic policies aimed at improving the welfare of the public."