One of the big reasons why I'm happy to back developing countries such as Venezuela in their use of gigantic states is that developing the big infrastructural projects that both left and right visions of government need for survival is often impossible without them. Stalin is the archetypical example. Many millions died because of him, which is plainly murderous and immoral, because this was, famines excepted, completely escapable. But without the thousands of tractors created to mechanise farming, millions would have continued to die from starvation and disease that would otherwise have taken hold. Only the state was capable of getting tractors to a peasentry which could not afford tractors, despite the overwhelming need of both the peasentry itself and the wider country for the proceeds of mechanised farming.
Now, this applies to energy in the so called 'developed world'. The private sector companies which extract our fossil fuel dependent energy supplies are, following years of mergers and takeovers via the capitalist medium of apparent competition, slow, crude and self interested monopolies. They have a great interest in the long term in developing towards harvesting green energy and making the changeover, but they know that this will mean enormous risk, and almost certainly a good deal of restructuring and downsizing. They are competing against each other to do the least.
In situations like this, the initiative of a state liberated from the imperative of immediate market concern, and with a wider geographical, financial and temporal strategy is essential.
Perhaps when oil companies end up facing ruin at the hands of the inevitable state enterprise(s) which will result, they will finally convert to green industry, and rejoin the struggle for competition and privatisation.
In capitalist history, the state employee does the work, and the execs and big time shareholders at the private companies with little incentive to respect the public interest eventually take the spoils. I guess that's currently the natural path of development. But it does seem like they're browbeating the rest of us into an awfully long route towards something which is, at the end of the day, a sort of decline.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
We need state intervention for green energy and jobs
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)







21 rants:
Last week you were mild new Labour, today your full blown commie. Welcome to the world of New Labour.
The problem is of course your looking at people like Shell and BP carrying on to drill for oil, of course they might well buy up large sectors of land throughout the world and grow oil. They might well go into opencast mining turning coal into Oil and gas, we are many many years away from these companies being worried over New Labour or Browns new world.
Your endorsing Stalin? Get out the Labour party mate.
Seriously, people won't take your veiws seriously if you just shrug off mass murder by a brutal dictator calling himself a communist.
You seem to have a bit of an obsession with the state aswell.
Peter Mandelson's industrial activism is necessary and reminds us that the state needs to invest in the right infrastructure, skills and education, research and development and more, to attract businesses and create wealth creating markets.
Someone needs to do a post on Labourlist, warning people about the danger's of proposed "healthcare budgets" within the NHS, and how that could erode and damage the universal principles of the NHS and lead to the destruction of it.
To qoute Lenin, "Give a capitalist enough rope and he will hang himself."
..."Give a Blairite enough power and he will destroy the NHS".
How on earth am I 'endorsing Stalin'? Yeah, the man with the co-op party badge. Obsessed with the state.
Obviously.
Perhaps I could offer you an alternative way of approaching these things; how about reading what I've actually written?
"Give a Blairite enough power and he will destroy the NHS".
Ne'er a truer word spoken...
Sorry about that my computer is down and I've borrowed a lap top which does not use speech typing. so it's pencil tied to hand time again.
I had a comment on Purnells welfare reform, Mr Purnell said he will look into my case, he asked me to conatct his office, but with my difficulty typing they are looking at me visiting him at his office. look out .....
Dear me Tom this is a really bad post. Who taught you economics.
First -- please tell me where these monopolies are?
The only organisations that approach monopoly status in our society are state ones.
Also what's this nonsense about state employees? State employees are funded by private sector workers like myself. Precisely what do state employees produce?
Well, that depends on what you privatise. At the moment they produce very little, they are almost exclusively focused on distribution (which is where I'd say they are most valuable).
The natural tendency of capitalism is towards monopoly. It's pretty much the aim of most large enterprises, the aim of small one being the aim of becoming large.
Capitalism is a process of centralisation.
I think it depends on where you live, in my area the Tories are still hated because of Thatcher, but now of course New Labour has a problem when Brown use to say remember Thatcher they can shout back "no more boom and bust" with hails of laughter, but worse of course when Brown says remember Thatcher he is talking to people who do not. The NHS of course is great unless your one who has to put up with MRSA because the cleaners are working for a private contractor and does not do the job. I think the best prof of New Labour will be the next election if it's wiped out Labour will look for a new leader and of course he will need to be something special.Do not worry Labour are doing well now the next king can be a Catholic, hence removing from view for a short period the mess at the global meetings in which people and countries are turning away from Browns idea's thank god.
"Stalin is the archetypical example. Many millions died because of him, which is plainly murderous and immoral, because this was, famines excepted, completely escapable. But without the thousands of tractors created to mechanise farming, millions would have continued to die from starvation and disease that would otherwise have taken hold."
Not sure it's a great idea to argue for state intervention by citing the nadir of 20th century state intervention.
Well, OK, it's a fair point. An example from thin air.
What I'm trying to say is that a lot of the USSRs state intervention, not just under Stalin, was crucial to the development of the country, and the survival of millions.
Well, yeah but in the USSR there was no meaningful separation between the state and the economy.
It's not like in the 1930s there was a Soviet private sector that was either choosing not to industrialize or failing to do so.
I just about agree that a brutal dictatorship with a ludicrous self-defeating economic structure (and tractors) is marginally better than a brutal dictatorship with a ludicrous self-defeating economic structure (and no tractors) but it's not an achievement I'll be pinning by social democratic rosette on.
Well, I'm not saying that it's better. I'm saying that developing countries need obscene amounts of low quality tractors, and that the state does the job nicely.
As a former trot and current democratic socialist I'm hardly going to be pro-Stalin.
But I don't think that everything about his regime was bad. Much of his industrial policy was totally necessary given the context.
Tom there is no process to capitalism. The idea of a capitalist monopoly without state backing is almost impossible.
Well, by the time enterprises get large enough to be able to wall off new competitors in defied markets/play an existing competitive advantage to shut out new challengers, they already (inefficiently) employ enough people and generate a big enough slice of GDP to be able to effectively bully governments into acting in a corporatist fashion with regard to them...
I think there is certainly a process to capitalism... you're talking about a socio-economic system which has only existed for about 300 years, has been responsible for numerous social revolutions, and has been through distinct phases of production and accumulation; for example, think about the difference made to how every person lives by the birth of Fordism...
You mean Taylorism.
The market process has been around from day dot. Your capitalist monopolies don't exist. Firstly it's impossible to acheive a monopoly via the market system. No one could afford it. As your market share increases above 50% the market share remaining becomes increasingly more valuable.
And secondly large companies only become large because people purchase their products. If people suddenly went off their products the business would fail. Fundamentally the only way you can wall off competitors is by providing products that consumers want more than anyone else's.
You have heard of Windows Media Player?
I think we're talking in abstractions here:
"The idea of a capitalist monopoly without state backing is almost impossible."
Maybe I'm missing something but how would you have capitalism at all without a state holding it together?
Has it ever been tried?
免費A片, 本土自拍, AV女優, 美女視訊, 情色交友, 免費AV, 色情網站, 辣妹視訊, 美女交友, 色情影片, 成人影片, 成人網站, A片,H漫, 18成人, 成人圖片, 成人漫畫, 情色網, 日本A片, 免費A片下載, 性愛, 成人交友, 嘟嘟成人網, 成人電影, 成人, 成人貼圖, 成人小說, 成人文章, 成人圖片區, 免費成人影片, 成人遊戲, 微風成人, 愛情公寓, 情色, 情色貼圖, 情色文學, 做愛, 色情聊天室, 色情小說, 一葉情貼圖片區, 情色小說, 色情, 寄情築園小遊戲, 色情遊戲, 情色視訊,
情色電影, aio交友愛情館, 言情小說, 愛情小說, 色情A片, 情色論壇, 色情影片, 視訊聊天室, 免費視訊聊天, 免費視訊, 視訊美女, 視訊交友, ut聊天室, 視訊聊天, 免費視訊聊天室, a片下載, av片, A漫, av dvd, av成人網, 聊天室, 成人論壇, 本土自拍, 自拍, A片, 愛情公寓, 情色, 舊情人, 情色貼圖, 情色文學, 情色交友, 色情聊天室, 色情小說, 一葉情貼圖片區, 情色小說, 色情, 色情遊戲, 情色視訊, 情色電影, aio交友愛情館, 色情a片, 一夜情, 辣妹視訊, 視訊聊天室, 免費視訊聊天, 免費視訊, 視訊, 視訊美女, 美女視訊, 視訊交友, 視訊聊天, 免費視訊聊天室, 情人視訊網, 影音視訊聊天室, 視訊交友90739, 成人影片, 成人交友,
做愛的漫畫圖片, 情色電影分享區, 做愛ㄉ影片, 丁字褲美女寫真, 色美眉, 自拍俱樂部首頁, 日本偷自拍圖片, 色情做愛影片, 情色貼圖區, 八國聯軍情色網, 免費線上a片, 淫蕩女孩自拍, 美國a片, 都都成人站, 色情自拍, 本土自拍照片, 熊貓貼圖區, 色情影片, 5278影片網, 脫星寫真圖片, 粉喵聊天室, 金瓶梅18, sex888影片分享區, 1007視訊, 雙贏論壇, 爆爆爽a片免費看, 天堂私服論壇, 情色電影下載, 成人短片, 麗的線上情色小遊戲, 情色動畫免費下載, 日本女優, 小說論壇, 777成人區, showlive影音聊天網, 聊天室尋夢園, 義大利女星寫真集, 韓國a片, 熟女人妻援交, 0204成人, 性感內衣模特兒, 影片, 情色卡通, 85cc免費影城85cc, 本土自拍照片, 成人漫畫區, 18禁, 情人節阿性,
aaaa片, 免費聊天, 咆哮小老鼠影片分享區, 金瓶梅影片, av女優王國, 78論壇, 女同聊天室, 熟女貼圖, 1069壞朋友論壇gay, 淫蕩少女總部, 日本情色派, 平水相逢, 黑澀會美眉無名, 網路小說免費看, 999東洋成人, 免費視訊聊天, 情色電影分享區, 9k躺伯虎聊天室, 傑克論壇, 日本女星杉本彩寫真, 自拍電影免費下載, a片論壇, 情色短片試看, 素人自拍寫真, 免費成人影音, 彩虹自拍, 小魔女貼影片, 自拍裸體寫真, 禿頭俱樂部, 環球av影音城, 學生色情聊天室, 視訊美女, 辣妹情色圖, 性感卡通美女圖片, 影音, 情色照片 做愛, hilive tv , 忘年之交聊天室, 制服美女, 性感辣妹, ut 女同聊天室, 淫蕩自拍, 處女貼圖貼片區, 聊天ukiss tw, 亞亞成人館, 777成人, 秋瓷炫裸體寫真, 淫蕩天使貼圖, 十八禁成人影音, 禁地論壇, 洪爺淫蕩自拍, 秘書自拍圖片,
Post a Comment
Abusive, hateful or off topic: I delete as I please. Mods=Gods. Be nice