Are you sure, Stern?

>>Pericles… no porkies… my commuting costs dropped by 70% following breaking of the commuter rail monopoly.<<

What commuter rail monopoly was that?

This one?

>>the monopoly operated by the rail network prior to Thatchers action<<

Which rail network was that?

Sounds very much like serial fibbing to me. One quick change of story after another.

And you still haven't explained how...

>>It was the likes of me who were being financially violated to pay for your mums cheap bus fares.<<

How exactly, from your dormitory suburb in Buckinghamshire, were you "financially violated" by my mother's travel plans?

I am not an advocate of capitalism anymore than I am an advocate of communism.

I am an advocate of a balanced, middle way that takes the best from the ideological opposites of capitalism and communism and blends them together into something that is 'more than simply a combination of both'.

From that perspective, our current society is too capitalist.

Closer to people's homes, what i would like to see is a rich mosaic of cooperative enterprises and locally focussed, private businesses. Looking at society in the broader scale, I'd like to see government control of the major productive assets of the society with mechanisms in place that enables private investment in those assets.

For this to work, I advocate in favour of economic mechanisms that encourage people to purchase locally produced goods and services (and by local I mean down to the level of the neighbourhood) ahead of those that are imported. (As I said- Ricardo, with his theory of comparative advantage which leads to the idea of free trade, was only half right.)

Decentralizing the productive capacity of the society in this way will move us away from both megacorps and huge government monopolies. Not only will it reduce the need for the organization of production and distribution on the huge scale, it will also provide local competition against anything organized on the large scale.

Democratic governments are of course also essential in helping to maintain the stability of this 'balance'.

Pericles.. I am not sure what your motive is but I have answered your questions and see no point in repeating myself.

GilbertHolmes “From that perspective, our current society is too capitalist.”

If we are too “capitalist”: then we are too “free”

Maybe you can tell me what benefit is there in appointing a tax collector to gather revenue from my example traders?

What “Added Value” does that tax collector contribute to the value or quality of the trade?

I do recall Lenin did say

“Freedom is precious, so precious it must be rationed”

I further recall another politician suggesting

"Yet the basic fact remains: every regulation represents a restriction of liberty, every regulation has a cost. That is why, like marriage (in the Prayer Book's words), regulation should not 'be enterprised, nor taken in hand, unadvisedly, lightly, or wantonly'."

That politician would not have thought we were “too free” to undertake the capitalist endeavours of our own choice.

She said "To be free is better than to be unfree - always. Any politician who suggests the opposite should be treated as suspect."

“what i would like to see is a rich mosaic of cooperative enterprises and locally focussed, private businesses. Looking at society in the broader scale, I'd like to see government control of the major productive assets of the society with mechanisms in place that enables private investment in those assets”

government manipulating the market to appease Gilbert’s sense of “balance”

the market works fine by itself

in your version of “nirvana”

we use artificial constraints of support and subsidy,

Your attempts to make your “ideal” come true is akin to putting sand (in the form of taxes) into the wheel bearing of a smooth running machine so the slower engines- who get the subsidies, can try to keep up

All you are doing is reducing the net benefits to the whole community

That is the chronic problem with all collectivist “social engineering”...

it produces a less / fewer beneficial outcomes for all

when compared a free capitalist methodology

hasbeen was right...Gilbert, is trying to justify “tax collectors”

Motive, Stern?

>>Pericles.. I am not sure what your motive is but I have answered your questions and see no point in repeating myself.<<

It is true that you answered my questions on the topic of the cost of taking a bus, rather than a train.

In doing so, you exposed the creative fiction of your original assertion, that the reduction in your commuting costs was a result of Prime Minister Thatcher's policies.

If your imagination on these matters were not checked occasionally, we would soon be required to acknowledge that the Lady in question is wholly responsible for the sun rising each morning, bathing us in her righteous glow.

So indeed, there is no need to repeat yourself, nor did I ask you to.

On the other hand, the "motive" behind my question on the financial embarrassment caused you by my mother's profligate use of public transport some hundred miles or so from your country cottage, was to point out the mindlessness of your position.

It is one thing to believe that, as a matter of national policy, the aged should receive no financial assistance from any level of government. I think that it is shameful position to adopt, but that you have a right to your view.

It is entirely another to make utterly stupid statements like this:

>>It was the likes of me who were being financially violated to pay for your mums cheap bus fares.<<

There was never the slightest connection between the bus system that served your location, and my mother's. As you well know.

So, if you are searching for a motive that connects these two "corrections", it is to point out that you talk rubbish.

And not only do you talk rubbish, but you think you can get away with it by hiding behind a few weasel words.

Have a great day.

Incidentally, Stern, for all your blind adulation, Margaret Thatcher's politics were a delicate shade of pink, compared to your own.

She did little to ease the tax burden. In the twelve years from 1979 to 1989, the tax grab plummeted from 40.2% of GDP to... 39.9%. That was an additional £75 billion, extracted from the taxpayer. Despite, of course, the fact that she had sold a bunch of valuable assets belonging to the citizenry, to the private sector along the way...

...British Petroleum, British Aerospace, British Shipbuilders, British Sugar, Cable and Wireless, Britoil, Associated British Ports, Jaguar, British Telecom, the National Bus Company, British Gas, British Airways, the Royal Ordnance, Rolls-Royce, British Airports Authority, Rover, British Steel and the Regional Water Authorities...

You might be forgiven for thinking, might you not, that having flogged off all these badly-run, loss-making operations, she'd have a few bucks left over to put back into the taxpayer's pocket.

Or to tart up the Health System. Or Education.

Or something.

Instead of which, she eventually hung herself and her government when attempting to introduce, and justify, of one of the most unrealistic and unfair tax policies of all time and all geographies - the Poll Tax.

How is this not "akin to putting sand (in the form of taxes) into the wheel bearing of a smooth running machine"?

Since you are such an outspoken advocate of small-government and individual responsibility, Stern, you might like to spend a moment defending her Ladyship's position on the "community charge".

It is possible that you might have a spot of bother reconciling the above facts with your hagiographic lens on Saint Margaret.

"That is what I was referring to as your presumption that “this time it will be different”

Okay Stern, I misunderstood. I got the sense that you were pulling the argument back to a purist model and equally I do respect your right to disagree.

If we are to accept that no system is perfect, that implies Capitalism is not perfect - as you concede.

On that basis, what would you recommend within a capitalist system that would offset some of the faults. I cannot see it done without some form of regulation that ensures 'the greater good' and that will reduce to a minimum any inequitable concentrations of power or to ensure a more level playing field on many fronts.

Self-regulation has failed miserably, some sectors worse than others, even oversight bodies have failed on matters of anti-competition, price fixing, monopolies etc (probably because they do not really believe or have clearly defined as 'their role'). The extreme end of capitalism that perpetuates the myth of free markets fail to see how fragile this system is and how depending on fluctuations can disadvantage particular groups almost overnight whether it be small business, primary producers, workers or consumers. And I haven't even covered the impact of consumption/growth ideology on the environment which while regenerative cannot keep up with growthist policy.

There is no loss of face if we tweak capitalism and our economic mindset to better benefit communities. We should make it work for us not the other way around.