It's Grim Up North, especially so in Burnley...

[Norder]

.

If you do not vote them into power then what do you do?

I think the options are many - Balam, the System isn't them, it's Us - so as long as there's a mass disavowal of their dark matters - am sure our positive flow will make any transition a joy.

[Balanbam00]

What I see is which ever present day leadership people choose ,it is still a Capitalist economy. One can glance on Google ( I am just too lazy to start my head cranking up its 6.30 am here)
Why capitalism is bad?
Prominent among critiques of capitalism are accusations that capitalism is inherently exploitative, alienating, unstable, unsustainable, and creates massive economic inequality, commodifies people, and is anti-democratic and leads to an erosion of human rights while it incentivises imperialist expansion and war.
Capitalism is an economic system based on free markets and limited government intervention. ... In short, capitalism can cause – inequality, market failure, damage to the environment, short-termism, excess materialism and boom and bust economic cycles.
Cons of capitalism
Monopoly power. Private ownership of capital enables firms to gain monopoly power in product and labour markets. ...
Monopsony power. ...
Social benefit ignored. ...
Inherited wealth and wealth inequality. ...
Inequality creates social division. ...
Diminishing marginal utility of wealth. ...
Boom and bust cycles.
What ever party we choose from todays parties, A, B, C, or D, etc, they whole function in a Capitalist system, so what have we changed?

At present, we are yet to apprehend what the consequences of such a sudden stop in productive and commercial activity will be. All we know is that the economic fallout will be immense — far worse than anything we have ever seen outside of a major war — and that it could potentially pose an existential threat to the heavily indebted world economy and the global financial system as we know it. As the billionaire hedge fund manager Bill Ackman recently put it to CNBC, “capitalism does not work in an 18-month shutdown.”

Western governments and central banks have therefore moved aggressively to respond to this second aspect of the crisis. Even as they hesitated to safeguard the health of the general public, they moved swiftly to preserve the health of the markets. In the space of just weeks, officials have already pledged a number of record-shattering rescue packages to prevent a system-wide meltdown, including a raft of groundbreaking new monetary interventions by the Federal Reserve and the $2tn fiscal stimulus program recently passed by the Senate.

With China, Japan, the Eurozone, and the UK all simultaneously recording their worst declines in business activity on record, the conclusion seems inescapable: the bottom is about to fall out of the capitalist world economy.

So can we ask again the question ,then what do you do?

[Swissclaret]

Lord King, former Governor of the Bank of England and a very good economist, hit the nail on the head when he commented that the reason why all economic policies and models fail is because they cannot accommodate human nature.

Quite often, steps to stimulate spending result in people reducing their spending and saving more. This was the case in Japan in the 1990’s. The complete opposite of what the Government was seeking to achieve.

There has never been a time when everyone has been “equal” economically and socially. To think that it is achievable is a utopian ideal only. George Orwell was spot on with “Animal Farm” and in “1984” in his assessment of human nature. As was William Goulding in “Lord of the Flies”.

The failure of communist states also reflect human nature - it good points and its bad points.

The migration of labour has been a constant in human existence. That has not changed and never will.

Government can provide an environment that might influence micro economics. They could declare that Burnley is a tax free zone. Companies would be queuing up to locate there, with the resultant increase in employment. There would be an influx of people moving there, that would put pressure on local resources like housing, schools, medical services and so on.

There would also be people who would get very rich, whilst the majority will work and earn a decent living, but will not be as wealthy as others. That is human nature.

[The Bedlington Terrier]

Lord King, former Governor of the Bank of England and a very good economist, hit the nail on the head when he commented that the reason why all economic policies and models fail is because they cannot accommodate human nature.

Quite often, steps to stimulate spending result in people reducing their spending and saving more. This was the case in Japan in the 1990’s. The complete opposite of what the Government was seeking to achieve.

There has never been a time when everyone has been “equal” economically and socially. To think that it is achievable is a utopian ideal only. George Orwell was spot on with “Animal Farm” and in “1984” in his assessment of human nature. As was William Goulding in “Lord of the Flies”.

The failure of communist states also reflect human nature - it good points and its bad points.

The migration of labour has been a constant in human existence. That has not changed and never will.

Government can provide an environment that might influence micro economics. They could declare that Burnley is a tax free zone. Companies would be queuing up to locate there, with the resultant increase in employment. There would be an influx of people moving there, that would put pressure on local resources like housing, schools, medical services and so on.

There would also be people who would get very rich, whilst the majority will work and earn a decent living, but will not be as wealthy as others. That is human nature.

It would help though if those dastardly Tories would stop sending "Levelling Up" funds to Tory Hotspots like Newmarket and Newbury and sent the brown envelopes to places like Burnley, Hartlepool and Rochdale instead.

[Balanbam00]

What are the characteristics of human nature? That we must ask ? What is human nature?
There would also be people who would get very rich, whilst the majority will work and earn a decent living, but will not be as wealthy as others. That is human nature.

The question could be asked what is human nature?
Is human nature not controlled by the environment we live in? I live in an Israeli Kibbutz, I do not hear of people stealing, nor women being raped, then any serious crime, and here a woman can walk alone at night without being afraid. Is that true in Western Society's? Further I never lock my door at night, why should I nobody would come and enter or steal anything! Then if a bicycle is left against a fence somewhere nobody takes it. Is that also true in a Western society?

People that live in a Capitalistic society would think in terms of Capitalism. For example, if I said the 5 basic necessary requirements should be guaranteed to everyone, a Capitalist would think ''how is it possible!'' There is at least in theory such a system 'Prout' (Progressive Utilisation Theory).
Communism has left the world, and now Capitalism is on the way out ,the question is not 'if ' but when? Both these two great systems are materialistic theory's

The statement of human nature that Orwell's Animal Farm is making is that human nature is corrupted by power and greed. We have chosen leadership in politics a leadership of any Tom ,Dick or Harry, and in time these people have become corrupt. But sadly the concept of morality ,is not in their agenda. A better idea is to choose leadership of 'spiritual moralists,' that is a new idea .The problem is how to create 'spiritual moralists.'
PROUT, is a relatively unknown theory.
Ravi Batra was one of the first economists that used the ideas of Prout In time, the theory attracted attention of people like Johan Galtung, founder of the UN Institute for Peace studies who claimed that "Sarkar’s theory is far superior to Adam Smith’s or that of Marx."
According to a description by Terry Irving and Rowan Cahill, Prout "envisages a decentralised, community-based world economy of self-sufficiency for the poor; economic democracy; small business; and limits on the accumulation of wealth."Sohail Inayatullah stated that the philosophy "attempts to balance the need for societies to create wealth and grow with the requirements for distribution." David Skrbina characterized Prout as a "model of social development... which advocates a 'small is beautiful' approach to society." Economics instructor Mark Friedman places Sarkar's economic thought in the tradition of Monsignor John A. Ryan, E.F. Schumacher and Herman Daly in Sarkar's incorporation of spiritual values into economic goals.
It has been characterized as a form of "progressive socialism" as well as a "socialist theory"
Hans Despain noted, that there are similarities between Prout and the theories of David Schweickart, Gar Alperovitz and Richard D. Wolff. Particularly the focus on economic democracy and co-operatives.

In relation to democracy, Prout argues that political democracy is not enough to free society from exploitation and what it considers extreme income inequality. As Roar Bjonnes, a known Proutist, states, "Unless we have deeper structural change – what we refer to as economic-systems change – we will never be able to solve such global and systemic problems as the environmental and inequality crises. History has demonstrated that political democracy is not enough."

Prout, therefore, advocates an economic democracy where the decision-making power for the economic future of a community is given to its inhabitants. Economic democracy is not a new term, but Sarkar reinvents it by setting four requirements for what he considers a successful one. The first and foremost requirement is guaranteeing the minimum requirements of life to all members of society. Secondly, and following one of the five fundamental principles, Prout argues that there should be an increasing purchasing capacity for each individual, stating that local people will have to hold economic power over their socio-economic region. Still, on this regard, Sarkar theorizes that, unlike capitalism, where the production and distribution of goods are mainly decided by market competition, in a Proutistic society it should be based on necessity. The third requirement of economic democracy is the decentralization of power, giving the freedom to make economic decisions to its stakeholders. That can be accomplished by adopting a worker-owned cooperative system and by the use of local resources (raw materials and other natural resources) for the development of the region and not merely for export. In summary, Prout advocates a decentralized economy where self-sufficient economic zones are created and organized according to a set of predetermined conditions

[Swissclaret]

What are the characteristics of human nature? That we must ask ? What is human nature?
There would also be people who would get very rich, whilst the majority will work and earn a decent living, but will not be as wealthy as others. That is human nature.

The question could be asked what is human nature?
Is human nature not controlled by the environment we live in? I live in an Israeli Kibbutz, I do not hear of people stealing, nor women being raped, then any serious crime, and here a woman can walk alone at night without being afraid. Is that true in Western Society's? Further I never lock my door at night, why should I nobody would come and enter or steal anything! Then if a bicycle is left against a fence somewhere nobody takes it. Is that also true in a Western society?

People that live in a Capitalistic society would think in terms of Capitalism. For example, if I said the 5 basic necessary requirements should be guaranteed to everyone, a Capitalist would think ''how is it possible!'' There is at least in theory such a system 'Prout' (Progressive Utilisation Theory).
Communism has left the world, and now Capitalism is on the way out ,the question is not 'if ' but when? Both these two great systems are materialistic theory's

The statement of human nature that Orwell's Animal Farm is making is that human nature is corrupted by power and greed. We have chosen leadership in politics a leadership of any Tom ,Dick or Harry, and in time these people have become corrupt. But sadly the concept of morality ,is not in their agenda. A better idea is to choose leadership of 'spiritual moralists,' that is a new idea .The problem is how to create 'spiritual moralists.'
PROUT, is a relatively unknown theory.
Ravi Batra was one of the first economists that used the ideas of Prout In time, the theory attracted attention of people like Johan Galtung, founder of the UN Institute for Peace studies who claimed that "Sarkar’s theory is far superior to Adam Smith’s or that of Marx."
According to a description by Terry Irving and Rowan Cahill, Prout "envisages a decentralised, community-based world economy of self-sufficiency for the poor; economic democracy; small business; and limits on the accumulation of wealth."Sohail Inayatullah stated that the philosophy "attempts to balance the need for societies to create wealth and grow with the requirements for distribution." David Skrbina characterized Prout as a "model of social development... which advocates a 'small is beautiful' approach to society." Economics instructor Mark Friedman places Sarkar's economic thought in the tradition of Monsignor John A. Ryan, E.F. Schumacher and Herman Daly in Sarkar's incorporation of spiritual values into economic goals.
It has been characterized as a form of "progressive socialism" as well as a "socialist theory"
Hans Despain noted, that there are similarities between Prout and the theories of David Schweickart, Gar Alperovitz and Richard D. Wolff. Particularly the focus on economic democracy and co-operatives.

In relation to democracy, Prout argues that political democracy is not enough to free society from exploitation and what it considers extreme income inequality. As Roar Bjonnes, a known Proutist, states, "Unless we have deeper structural change – what we refer to as economic-systems change – we will never be able to solve such global and systemic problems as the environmental and inequality crises. History has demonstrated that political democracy is not enough."

Prout, therefore, advocates an economic democracy where the decision-making power for the economic future of a community is given to its inhabitants. Economic democracy is not a new term, but Sarkar reinvents it by setting four requirements for what he considers a successful one. The first and foremost requirement is guaranteeing the minimum requirements of life to all members of society. Secondly, and following one of the five fundamental principles, Prout argues that there should be an increasing purchasing capacity for each individual, stating that local people will have to hold economic power over their socio-economic region. Still, on this regard, Sarkar theorizes that, unlike capitalism, where the production and distribution of goods are mainly decided by market competition, in a Proutistic society it should be based on necessity. The third requirement of economic democracy is the decentralization of power, giving the freedom to make economic decisions to its stakeholders. That can be accomplished by adopting a worker-owned cooperative system and by the use of local resources (raw materials and other natural resources) for the development of the region and not merely for export. In summary, Prout advocates a decentralized economy where self-sufficient economic zones are created and organized according to a set of predetermined conditions

Fascinating, Balan. Thanks for that. It is a very philosophical question as to what is “human nature”. One of the problems that I perceive with Proust is that not all economic zones can be self - sufficient leading to “trade” between zones where one zone produces something that another does not have, yet needs. Water is a classic example and many fear that WW3 will be about water.

Trade almost inevitably leads to a “profit motive” in some. A profit that they do not always want to share with others. Human nature, however one defines it, includes the “Seven Deadly Sins”, of which greed and envy feature strongly.

The early Christian communities were initially similarly to what is being proposed by Prout. Even with the spiritual basis that was fundamental, they fell apart due in part to greed, envy, jealousy.

The reality is that human beings are flawed and any society that they try to create will be flawed in some way or another - some worse than others.

[Balanbam00]

Swissclaret : Yes thank you. Your point about '' not all economic zones can be self - sufficient. Seems correct, but I am sure it would be in each zones interest that they mutually 'help' each other. I think even today for example in this area ,Israel is helping its neighbour Jorden, in that it supply's Jorden with water. As you may know 30-40 years ago that was a problem in the Middle East- water. But Israel now converts sea water to drinking water. Today, 70% of Israel's domestic water demand is provided by desalination, a process by which salt and other impurities are removed from seawater to produce potable water. In other terms, the country is producing around 600 million cubic meter of desalinated water to meet its population's needs. In the future it may be that Jorden in exchange provides to Israel labour. Today Israel is helping the Emirates, and Jorden to use Owls and Kestrels as agricultural pest controllers in the Middle East. It is in our interest to show the Jordanians how to do this. I think a pair of Owls can kill about 6000 pests a year. The Kestrel hunts by day and the Owl by night.

Socio=economic zones http://proutglobe.org/2011/06/socioeconomic-units/

Socio-economic units should be formed throughout the world on the basis of same economic problems, uniform economic potentialities, ethnic similarities, common sentimental legacy and similar geographical features. … Socio-economic units will have to adopt economic decentralization so that the local people will be able to obtain all the requirements necessary for their physical, psychic and spiritual progress.
Capitalism is based on 'profit' motivation. Prout's economic zones are based on consumption economy

Samaj - A state and a movement A socio-economic groupification, popularly known as Samaj in Proutist terminology, is identified based on 1. Similar economic problem 2. Uniform-economic potentiality 3.Ethnic similarity 4.Common sentimental legacy 5. Similar geographical features. Based on these criteria, Proutists have identified 44 such socio-economic units in India and 243 in the whole world.

“ to fulfill the mutual needs between regions, PROUT encourages the barter system in preference to the export system. The export system ultimately becomes commercial and competitive and leads to exploitation."

[Norder]

.

Capitalism for the Poor, the prime cause of economic inequalities globally...it widened the gap, it fed the failing, an excuse to take more and more and...more - it squeezed the peoples pocket and fed it back to the favoured fat cat corporations and super charged fund managers of the old family cabal.

they seized it all, own it all....as for the "Build back better", it a coup d’état, but can be sure they won't be removing themselves, it's either us, or them !






..

[Balanbam00]

For sure a collapse of capitalism is sure to come, it's not 'if' but 'when'! The economic system is failing. The question is what then? Yes, what then ? Then Communism ,the barter system?

"There's a hole in the system dear friends ,dear friends. There's a hole in the system, dear friends a hole ''
Then fix it, dear friend, dear friend, dear friend, then fix it dear friend, fix it .
But how can I fix it dear friends ,dear friends? But how can I fix it dear friends?

With Prout dear friend ,dear friend, dear friend, with Prout ,that how!

[The Bedlington Terrier]

Rishi obviously reads Clarets Mad...

https://www.burnleyexpress.net/news/...kzUUXOgVuWOxGE