All In Bed Together

[Big Vince 318]

5 minutes ago, 1902 said:

The idea that our football club is being run as a socialist enterprise is truly absurd. It literally doesn't even hold water for a second so it is in fact completely irrelevant.

It is owned by private individuals, whose capital is is invested, then the profits are either taken as dividend or reinvested in order to try to increase the value of the club. It's literally capitalism at its most basic. 

If football was run on usual capitalist economic models, then nearly every single club in the premiership outside of us would have been out of business. Most clubs are closer to private yachts or propaganda arms of states than a normal enterprise.

 

 

3 minutes ago, Midlands Yellow said:

North Korea. 

The only reason they haven't collapsed yet is because of bailouts from their mate over the border in China.

[1902 1,167]

4 minutes ago, Big Vince said:

 

 

The only reason they haven't collapsed yet is because of bailouts from their mate over the border in China.

If you can explain how those two posts are linked then I'd be very impressed.

[Big Vince 318]

8 minutes ago, Mello Yello said:

A limited finance self funding club....but always able to afford travel an' transport niceties.....even when in the Chumps.....

Well there you go! Classic socialists. Like to keep the club poor whilst they splash a bit of dosh on themselves.

[Big Vince 318]

13 minutes ago, 1902 said:

If you can explain how those two posts are linked then I'd be very impressed.

They are linked by the minority of one principle. Only socialist state still standing and only self-funding EPL club in existence.

[1902 1,167]

1 minute ago, Big Vince said:

They are linked by the minority of one principle. Only socialist state still standing and only self-funding EPL club in existence.

Duck billed platypus. Golden gate bridge. 

[A Load of Squit 5,161]

6 minutes ago, 1902 said:

Duck billed platypus. Golden gate bridge. 

Now I've got to change my interweb password.

 

[Badger 2,405]

2 hours ago, Big Vince said:

Name one country where socialist economic policies have worked?

Not an exclusive list, but how about

• Free healthcare
• Pensions for the old
• Benefits for the sick, disabled and unemployed
• Universal suffrage (that's the right to vote, Vince 😉)
• etc

None of the above are supplied by free market capitalism and only became available as socialist ideas became adopted within countries.

They were predictably resisted very strongly by capitalists, but in most developed countries were widely accepted for generations, although since the 1980s have come under attack again by free market capitalists, often through interminable underfunding.

[Yobocop 1,098]

5 hours ago, Uncle Fred said:

Wise words 

You liar, theres not a chance you read all of that lol 

[Big Vince 318]

13 minutes ago, Badger said:

Not an exclusive list, but how about

• Free healthcare
• Pensions for the old
• Benefits for the sick, disabled and unemployed
• Universal suffrage (that's the right to vote, Vince 😉)
• etc

None of the above are supplied by free market capitalism and only became available as socialist ideas became adopted within countries.

They were predictably resisted very strongly by capitalists, but in most developed countries were widely accepted for generations, although since the 1980s have come under attack again by free market capitalists, often through interminable underfunding.

Agreed. We are not a great colonial power anymore, do not have lots of dosh rolling in from an empire, Elizabeth is not Empress of India, we no longer have grand titles in the military such as Chief of the Imperial General Staff (CIGS) and so consequently we have no money to pay for all this social provision. It is curious that demands for all this came as empire was waning. Should having been belt tightening instead of splashing out.

[Midlands Yellow 3,980]

If I’m next to Lakey I hope he takes his hat off. 

[Dr Greenthumb 749]

1 hour ago, Big Vince said:

But the thrust of this thread is that we make things worse for ourselves by adopting the wrong attitudes and principles thus compounding the lack of money issue. It has been a feature of Delia's stewardship that she has made so many of the wrong calls and then repeated them and if not social - ism; then certainly her social world view.

I agree she doesn’t have the wealth to run a football club in the top division. 
The thing is, we keep getting there.

For every Webber and Farke choice that has been made, there is a Moxley and Gunn. She does get things right (aswell as wrong).

For us to succeed in the prem, we need financial support. But at least we get a fun ride in the champs each time. I am no means happy that is our methods, but there’s never a dull Moment!

[Big Vince 318]

59 minutes ago, 1902 said:

Duck billed platypus. Golden gate bridge. 

Kojak lollipop and Jimmy Hill.

[FatCanary 249]

5 hours ago, Big Vince said:

Yes, really. The problem is to do with attitude not events.

Covid does not change what is going on in heads.

I lost my toolbox the other day, but now I've found it.

It's you.

[Mr Angry 1,555]

5 hours ago, 1902 said:

This forum is basically divided between two camps both of which are denying the obvious.

The "we are terrible" camp which ignores that our first two fixtures were truly grim and that the transfer market doesn't mean you can pick up a quality CB and CDM like buying a ready meal from Sainsbury's. 

And the, "it's the two best teams in the country" camp that ignores that we were unacceptably shocking yesterday and that if the club does fail to strengthen those two positions we are probably going down.

As per usual, the truth probably lies in the space in between.

And both camps are constantly repeating the same arguments over and over-doesn’t make for great reading really.

[1902 1,167]

25 minutes ago, Mr Angry said:

And both camps are constantly repeating the same arguments over and over-doesn’t make for great reading really.

If a football forum isn't repetitive, does it really deserve the name?

[yellowrider120 762]

6 hours ago, Creedence Clearwater Couto said:

There's definitely a cultural 'problem' at the club. How else do you explain the same type of away performances and results at this level time and time again, no matter the personnel. We were more than outclassed yesterday, it looked like an EPL versus League 2 side.

We just can't rid the small club mentality. The only time we threatened it in recent years, was Lamberts season in the EPL. A team full of former captains at other clubs, at the right age and in the prime of their careers. Holt, Morison, Howson, BJ, Crofts, Russ Martin, John Ruddy, Pilkington, and more... Huge characters, full of self confidence, prepared to out work the opposition and fight for everything.  

Other than that season, we've been depressingly compliant little old Norwich. Whether we like it or not, we are a bit of a laughing stock at this level. I just don't see the point in us as an EPL side.... I mean bloody Brentford already look like making a better fist of it. 

 

Far too early to make any kind of predictions based on the first two RSEULTS but the awful PERFORMANCE yesterday is the key thing. If we play like that against any other team this season we will get similarly stuffed (and rightly so). Your post is 100% spot on and is a subject I have mentioned for years and years and this mentality emanates from our owners. If you want proof then I give you this quote from The Cook at the start of the 2004/2005 PL season.............'We're just going to enjoy this lovely, long holiday' It sickened me then and sickens me now. No owner of any other club would have spouted this garbage. Mangers come and go, CEO's / Sporting Directors ditto, players ditto but the overarching negative attitude persists. 

[Feedthewolf 4,846]

You've got to give it to Pig Mince, his ability to reel in the punters time and time again is quite remarkable.

[Jim Smith 2,317]

4 hours ago, Big Vince said:

Well there you go! Classic socialists. Like to keep the club poor whilst they splash a bit of dosh on themselves.

In all seriousness I would be interested to know who picks up the tab for their bill over the course of a season. What with all the tickets, hospitality, private jets etc it must come to a reasonable sum. 

[Mello Yello 2,289]

....Yummy.....

[GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary 1,749]

I think Ipswich would probably be in Bananarama North...

[Rock The Boat 1,330]

6 hours ago, Badger said:

Not an exclusive list, but how about

• Free healthcare
• Pensions for the old
• Benefits for the sick, disabled and unemployed
• Universal suffrage (that's the right to vote, Vince 😉)
• etc

None of the above are supplied by free market capitalism and only became available as socialist ideas became adopted within countries.

They were predictably resisted very strongly by capitalists, but in most developed countries were widely accepted for generations, although since the 1980s have come under attack again by free market capitalists, often through interminable underfunding.

I'm not sure how you claim these are examples of socialism working when in your last sentence you admit it isn't working. 

All the items worked before socialism took over. 

There is no such thing as free healthcare. But healthcare exists in free market systems. 

Pensions exist in free market systems. 

Benefits for sick, disabled and unemployed exist in free market systems. 

It is a stretch to claim that universal suffrage came about because of socialism. 

All of the items you list do exist within free market systems. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Badger 2,405]

5 hours ago, Mr Angry said:

And both camps are constantly repeating the same arguments over and over-doesn’t make for great reading really.

If I'd been given a penny for every time I have heard this, I'd be a rich man! 😃

[Daz Sparks 1,152]

10 hours ago, Big Vince said:

One of the players went and caught Covid on purpose, gave it to the rest of the squad so that it could then be used by the Socialists as an excuse for relegation

Made I laugh that did!

[Badger 2,405]

7 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

All of the items you list do exist within free market systems. 

All of the developments I have cited were resisted by the ruling capitalist classes at the time and denounced as socialism. If you don't know this, you don't know much history. Nor do you if you don't know about how the ruling classes resisted democracy.

If you believe that free healthcare, education, pensions etc exist in a free market economy you don't know much economics.

The truth of the matter is that elements of socialism were increasingly integrated into the economy and society for over 100 years. There has been an attempt to reverse this over the last 40 years, with an effort to increasingly concentrate wealth and power in fewer and fewer hands. If you want to find something out about this, I suggest you start with the Lorenz Curve and the Gini coefficient.

 

[Rock The Boat 1,330]

1 minute ago, Badger said:

All of the developments I have cited were resisted by the ruling capitalist classes at the time and denounced as socialism. If you don't know this, you don't know much history. Nor do you if you don't know about how the ruling classes resisted democracy.

If you believe that free healthcare, education, pensions etc exist in a free market economy you don't know much economics.

The truth of the matter is that elements of socialism were increasingly integrated into the economy and society for over 100 years. There has been an attempt to reverse this over the last 40 years, with an effort to increasingly concentrate wealth and power in fewer and fewer hands. If you want to find something out about this, I suggest you start with the Lorenz Curve and the Gini coefficient.

 

The original question you were asked was to name a country where socialism works. You didn't answer the question but instead you listed four elements of a society. I presumed you were saying, and I may have misinterpreted you, that these elements exist in a socialist system but don't exist in a free market system.  Or at the very least they work better in a socialist system. 

I didn't address the latter but I did point out that everything in your list can be provided within a free market system. In fact, they did exist in the UK in the free market before the state muscled in and used its power to take over those services that were provided by the free market previously.  I would also argue that the free market would provide those services much more efficiently than the state which has a terrible record when it comes to providing goods and services. 

[Badger 2,405]

2 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

The original question you were asked was to name a country where socialism works.

Every developed western state has elements of socialism in its socio-economic-political mix. 

2 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

In fact, they did exist in the UK in the free market before the state muscled in

There was some education, healthcare and pensions under capitalism - it's just that the vast majority of people didn't get them. They were under-provided by the free market. Think about it - how could the market provide it if its free? Where's the incentive to provide a free good?

The socialist element came when they became freely available to everyone. I still have elderly relatives who can remember the days when you couldn't afford to go to the doctor.

2 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

I would also argue that the free market would provide those services much more efficiently than the state

I think that the systematic under-funding is designed to make this the case. I'm not sure that even those that try to promote arguments that the free market would provide really believe it either despite the propaganda that they pump the populace with in their press and websites. If they did, why don't they abolish the police, the courts, the army etc and encourage private provision of these?

[Big Vince 318]

4 hours ago, yellowrider120 said:

Far too early to make any kind of predictions based on the first two RSEULTS but the awful PERFORMANCE yesterday is the key thing. If we play like that against any other team this season we will get similarly stuffed (and rightly so). Your post is 100% spot on and is a subject I have mentioned for years and years and this mentality emanates from our owners. If you want proof then I give you this quote from The Cook at the start of the 2004/2005 PL season.............'We're just going to enjoy this lovely, long holiday' It sickened me then and sickens me now. No owner of any other club would have spouted this garbage. Mangers come and go, CEO's / Sporting Directors ditto, players ditto but the overarching negative attitude persists. 

Hear here, hear here, hear here.

[Rock The Boat 1,330]

1 hour ago, Badger said:

Every developed western state has elements of socialism in its socio-economic-political mix. 

There was some education, healthcare and pensions under capitalism - it's just that the vast majority of people didn't get them. They were under-provided by the free market. Think about it - how could the market provide it if its free? Where's the incentive to provide a free good?

The socialist element came when they became freely available to everyone. I still have elderly relatives who can remember the days when you couldn't afford to go to the doctor.

I think that the systematic under-funding is designed to make this the case. I'm not sure that even those that try to promote arguments that the free market would provide really believe it either despite the propaganda that they pump the populace with in their press and websites. If they did, why don't they abolish the police, the courts, the army etc and encourage private provision of these?

Nothing is free Badger. At least for most of us, we pay for these services through taxes. So the people who benefit from a socialised provision of services are those that pay no tax, the rest, the overwhelming majority don't benefit from a socialised provision of services. 

I'm not sure why your elderly relatives were unable to afford a doctor, either they were economically inactive or we're making poor economic choices, as people still do today. One hundred years ago my grandfather was a local secretary for a friendly society, and they collected weekly subscriptions of a few pence from Norfolk farm labourers. This paid for all services that you put in your original list. One hundred years ago the doctor came to your house when you were sick. Today in our socialised system one is lucky to get a phone call with a GP. 

Yes, for those who are not economically active or would prefer to spend their income on something other than benefits insurance and pensions a socialised system works better for them. For the majority of us we would have far better services if we got them on the free market. Doctors, hospitals etc had to compete with one another for the friendly society business, and when businesses compete they provide better services or go out of business. With socialised provision everything skews towards the lowest common denominator on a like it or lump it basis 

Why don't they abolish courts, police, army? Well there are private security firms that perform some of the police and judicial services. For other items, such as the army, there is just one customer - the government -and since the government has no demand for a private service it doesn't exist in the UK. But even then, other governments do actually employ mercenaries, so yes the free market c as n provide you with an army if the demand is there 

[Badger 2,405]

12 hours ago, Rock The Boat said:

One hundred years ago my grandfather was a local secretary for a friendly society, and they collected weekly subscriptions of a few pence from Norfolk farm labourers.

I have a great deal of time for friendly societies and other forms of "early"* socialism, along with things like the co-operative movement. However, you are naïve if you think that they provided anything like universal cover: they were a patchwork covering some areas and not others and often depended, understandably, on trades union membership, which I am surprised you support. In other cases, they provided benefits to the worker, but not to his family. TBH, I don't know enough about my great grandfather to know if he was a union member and a friendly society subscriber. It is possible that he made "bad economic choices:" if this was the case are you saying that it is therefore appropriate that his wife and six children should be denied healthcare because of his poor choices?

13 hours ago, Rock The Boat said:

For the majority of us we would have far better services if we got them on the free market. Doctors, hospitals etc had to compete with one another for the friendly society business, and when businesses compete they provide better services or go out of business.

There is little evidence to support this. There was very little private provision available before the NHS. There was a hotchpotch of worker and mutual provision, charitable provision and state provision. It was not universal and left many millions without access. There were some private doctors and hospitals but there was was not a competitive free market in health provision for the vast majority of the population.

13 hours ago, Rock The Boat said:

Why don't they abolish courts, police, army? Well there are private security firms that perform some of the police and judicial services. For other items, such as the army, there is just one customer - the government -and since the government has no demand for a private service it doesn't exist in the UK.

If the private sector would make better provision, why don't the govt subcontract out the police, courts and the army to private companies though? They have done it with large sectors of the health service and the prison system, for example. If they truly believed that the market makes better provision they contract it out as they have in other areas of public provision? If we lose a war or crime goes up too much we could ditch one provider and go to Serco or another private provider. I think that it is because they know that provision by private companies would be inadequate.

[Big Vince 318]

1 hour ago, Badger said:

I have a great deal of time for friendly societies and other forms of "early"* socialism, along with things like the co-operative movement. However, you are naïve if you think that they provided anything like universal cover: they were a patchwork covering some areas and not others and often depended, understandably, on trades union membership, which I am surprised you support. In other cases, they provided benefits to the worker, but not to his family. TBH, I don't know enough about my great grandfather to know if he was a union member and a friendly society subscriber. It is possible that he made "bad economic choices:" if this was the case are you saying that it is therefore appropriate that his wife and six children should be denied healthcare because of his poor choices?

There is little evidence to support this. There was very little private provision available before the NHS. There was a hotchpotch of worker and mutual provision, charitable provision and state provision. It was not universal and left many millions without access. There were some private doctors and hospitals but there was was not a competitive free market in health provision for the vast majority of the population.

If the private sector would make better provision, why don't the govt subcontract out the police, courts and the army to private companies though? They have done it with large sectors of the health service and the prison system, for example. If they truly believed that the market makes better provision they contract it out as they have in other areas of public provision? If we lose a war or crime goes up too much we could ditch one provider and go to Serco or another private provider. I think that it is because they know that provision by private companies would be inadequate.

There are limits as to how far you can go with capitalism and socialism.

You cannot for instance be sub-contracting the armed services or the intelligence agencies to private companies because the defence of the realm has to be the number one priority for any elected government and people expect that elected ministers will act in the best interests of the whole nation in protecting it. Only a government has the resources to mobilise a whole nation. War strategy is a matter for a select few acting on behalf of a great many. When every man, woman and child is under threat for their very existence you cannot have state secrets and sensitive information being held by private companies. If Hitler was going to invade and a private company was beholden to its shareholders or its balance sheet as to whether it would be bothered to stop Hitler, then you can imagine the public outcry. Governments necessarily rack up a large debt in wartime because you can't put a price on freedom. 

Socialism goes too far when you have tax payers supporting jobs in the coal-mining sector. If the mines are not economically viable then they should be closed. It is not the responsibility of every tax payer to support coal mining communities. Why should they? Miners are not indispensable. They don't have a god-given right to a job just like no one else has. The same applies to steel workers, shipyard workers and all the other heavy industries that became economically unviable by the 1980s.