Ineptocracy

[Marmora Man]

??

[silverfox]

Sounds like an idea made up by an inept marketing department to sell T-shirts

[????]

MM, you really must keep away from them Libeterian websites :)

[woodrot]

I give it 30 minutes until the Guardian readers come onto this thread and try some handwrigning defence of British Democracy and their fav politicos. ( all politicos are self serving filth by the way, don them anyone try to convince you otherwise ))

[the-e-dealer]

at least can we tipe (sic)

[Otta]

Don't worry MM, they are just worn by members of the NUS who smoke rollies and purposely don't wash their hair.

They'll stop all that nonsense once they've been grinded down through the cogs of the machine for a couple of years.

[Otta]

Or ground down even.

[Huguenot]

Is it referring to the Tories?

[????]

Er, No, just democratic govt in the western world, probably from the US fundamental liberterian wing....

[Huguenot]

There was an interesting appraisal from the US entitled "USA Inc." by one of the world's most successful Internet investors, Mary Meeker.

Within the manifesto, it attempted to treat the 'USA' as a corporate organisation living outside of its means. In its core premise - that the USA was a corporation whose expenditure exceeded its means - it created a valid persuasive argument that in modern corporate terms the US couldn't continue to function.

The first flaw

The problem was that whilst its arguments appealed in a simplistic style to hard pressed householders trying to balance the budget, the entire premise was flawed.

As James Cadbury concluded at Bourneville 150 years ago, a successful corporation could only function with an educated, healthy, confident and progressive workforce. In addition it needed secure living environments and an effective infrastructure reaching out to enfranchised, secure and enthusiastic markets who felt they received value for money.

The result was one of the most effective and dynamic corporations in recent history - Cadbury - and one of the most inclusive and efficient working environments - Bourneville.

The problem is that in a contemporary aggressive industrial environment such as the US, the workforce and infrastructure requirements have been dismissed by corporate governance ideals that dodge decent salaries and taxes for health, education, infrastructure and social security of its workforce in favour of retaining those funds to invest further cash in companies who fail to invest in the health, education, infrastructure and social security of its workforce.

Ad nauseam.

The premise is inadequate and dysfunctional. Historically Cadbury and recently other contemporary inspirational economists attempt to balance these requirements, but it's more difficult and long term to prove that the books balance.

The disproportionate concentration of wealth in so few hands whilst economies collapse is symptomatic of this failure.

It may well be possible to treat the USA as an "Inc." but only so far as it continues to fulfil its larger responsibilities to both its workforce and its markets - both of which in contemporary principles it is failing to do.

The second flaw

The second failure in the USA Inc of Mary Meeker, is that a nation state cannot be a contemporary corporation because it can't actually offload its workforce. It is constricted by geographical claims. This means that if you cannot offload the workforce, you have to employ it efficiently and comprehensively - a challenge which the USA Inc. manifesto comprehensively fails to do.

That's why a nation state cannot be an American style corporation - it needs to respect social economics rather than capitalist ideals.

The third flaw

Finally the imperative for Mary Meeker's manifesto is the concept of the US as a household that is borrowing beyond its credit card. This is a peculiar statement that only reverberates with households (that borrow 'real' money) but has almost nothing in common with a nation with a fiat currency that effectively prints its own.

Fractional reserve banking is a complex idea at the best of times, so household metaphors are more appealing to the right wing. The reality is that all a government need to do keep the economy turning over is print more money to overcome either the hoarders, or the restrictive practices of banks (who don't actually have any money anyway, they just invent it every time they make a loan).

This is called 'Quantitative Easing' and is at the forefront of the governments attempts to restructure the economy. Far from being a wolf in sheep's clothing (as the US and UK media barons would have us believe as they sit on their cash piles) this is absolutely necessary to alleviate the social burdens created by the establishment robber barons.

The conspiracy theorists that fail to recognise this are merely suckers for the system.

The long term effect of this is devaluation, but the reality is that if all modern economies devalue in concert, the effect is zero.

Hence 'debt' as a national consideration disappears.

The penalty

The penalty for devaluation is that those who have benefitted by accumulating their wealth at the expense of the future generations is two fold: the owners of that wealth, and pensioners.

Whilst this may seem unfair, these groups derived their wealth by building up the debt book.

My own Dad has a final salary pension that I would need to save ?2m to acquire at present rates.

If modern society wants to rebalance the books without so much pain, the reality is that it's either personal payment through 'austerity' and social collapse, or a recognition that the older generation must accept devaluation as the price of their indulgence, and their children must support them in their old age.

What does that mean for 'Ineptocracy'

The requirement for appropriate healthcare, education, infrastructure and social security is not a reflection of an inept society, but a requirement for effective corporate strategy and dynamic markets.

So too is an insistence that this should be provided conditionally on economic activity.

Far from being 'Ineptocracy' the British desire for sensible social development and security is built on a historical insight inimical to British society.

We work best when everything is working well - and that means everything Cadbury held dear.

That doesn't make this socialist ravings, but arguments fully intrinsic to the economic ideal within which capitalism and liberalism thrive.

[Salsaboy]

zzzzzzzz.

Has H finished yet?

[Huguenot]

No mate, ya gotta understand it!

[maxxi]

I gedddit - Karl Marx = Caramac, Cultural Revolution the Curly Wurly and the Frys 'Five Boys' were the gang of four.

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

What the fuck is a Marathon?

[woodrot]

fuck it

/ back to mindless posts about cats

[Huguenot]

Ah, you want it in a soundbite? ;-)

Austerity is when old white men take out a credit card in your name to fund their cruise holiday, and then tell you to stop feeding your kids to pay the bill.

When they've spent so much you have to stop paying the hospital bill too, they call you inept.

Forgive me, but I don't think we should let them get away with it.

[maxxi]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Ah, you want it in a soundbite? ;-)

>

> Austerity is when old white men take out a credit

> card in your name to fund their cruise holiday,

> and then tell you to stop feeding your kids to pay

> the bill.

>

> When they've spent so much you have to stop paying

> the hospital bill too, they call you inept.

>

> Forgive me, but I don't think we should let them

> get away with it.

Eat The Rich! Old! ... hmm, doesn't sound nearly so appetising.