London's Burning (& Birmingham, Leeds, Croydon...)

[Chris Coles]

Re: London's Burning (& Birmingham, Leeds, Croydon...)

Now that I know what you mean by socialism, I'll refute what you're on about here.



Still, this is democracy, and I consider any assault on the equality of opportunity an assault on the institution. Feudalism is for royalists and the House of Lords.

First of all, please accept my thanks for taking the trouble to detail your misgivings regarding the debate.

Now I want to turn to your statement above highlighted. It is my earnest belief that this misunderstanding lies at the heart of our overall problems; the belief that feudalism is a product of an imperial past history and that all our present problems relate to socialism. Today, feudalism is a product of executive government, not their lords and masters.

But I want to change the direction of your thinking slightly towards where I have come from. I am 67 yrs old, so have seen this coming for many decades. As I see it, it stems from a single incident that changed the way the Social Services here in the UK operated. Does anyone remember Cleveland? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clevela..._abuse_scandal This was not an isolated incident, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...se_allegations

What happened was the social services took control of the rules for chastisement of the child, very effectively banning parents from any controlling contact with their children.

Over the decades since, teachers have lost control of the classroom for the same reason; they are no longer permitted to chastise the child.

What we see today is the result of bringing up successive generations of children that have not been in any way brought under moral control. They grew up knowing that their parents could not spank them for their misdemeanors, their teachers the same. The long term consequence has arrived. A feral mob who fear nothing, have no inbuilt morality or respect for rules.

Now add, oh! yes!, add! .... Many of the lowest members of society have been damaged beyond repair by that self same group, social services. Taken from their natural parents, moved, constantly, from one institution to another, deeply angry at their treatment.

Back in the early 1990's, while living in Salisbury, England, I walked home one night following a young man that was kicking out at everything in his path. He kicked in a shop window, he was kicking out and breaking everything he could get at. I followed him to where he was living and took note; reported the whole thing in a letter to the police. You know what? he was being moved, constantly, by social services. The house where he was living, (sorry, staying), was owned by social services and was one of the thousands of such places they use to cover up their mistakes. The police chief wrote me a kind letter thanking me for the information.

My heart went out to that young man. He had been so damaged by the very people that are supposed to be there to protect him; he was completely out onto the edge of reason. THAT is the underlying problem we have here in the UK today. We still live in a feudal nation; but the feudalism is not the result of the ownership of land; it stems from the indifference of the executive government that has introduced ideas that simply fail..... COMPLETELY, to create a stable nation.

So what we see this week is the long term result of indifference on the part of the very group that were supposed to care. The police are there to back up social services. For that, they are hated by these children and once children, now adults.

So suggesting that we shoot the feral youths is to place the blame for their actions on them, rather than accepting that there are deep reasons for their actions that must be addressed. And yes, this will take many decades. There is no overnight solution.

I know some good people out of work. Smart people; hard-working people. I guess just because they got pink slipped and have been trying to find something similar that pays about 70% of what they got before they are lazy, liberal scum right? Or are they alcoholics? Who knows.

Their lives are meaningful, but they cannot find decent work. Should they, at 50 years old, be happy to work for $7 and hour and no benefits? Will they be scum for getting foreclosed on because something that was stable for decades suddenly wasn't?

I have highlighted the above because it is a very well stated point. The obverse side of the social services removal of responsibility to chastise; is the removal of the responsibility of the local community to be permitted to create new jobs. Again, that function has been removed and taken over by the executive government. Again, they have signally failed.

That was why I asked how many jobs had been created. if you have never set out to do that as an individual, on your own, without any help, you do not know how difficult that supposedly simple function can be. Today, we are desperately short of the simplest form of jobs for the millions living in our respective communities. You only get a grant if you conform to the rules of the executive; are prepared to conform to the directives of the executive; and are prepared to be bought and sold by friends of the executive.

That is feudalism. Today, we live in a feudal mercantile economy directly derived from the mistaken directives of the executive government.

[*T*]

Re: London's Burning (& Birmingham, Leeds, Croydon...)

[Master Shake]

Re: London's Burning (& Birmingham, Leeds, Croydon...)

Simple question Mn Mark: How many jobs have you, personally, created?

Non-sequiteur.

[LazyBoy]

Re: London's Burning (& Birmingham, Leeds, Croydon...)

You have an entire class of people who have internalized the message that they can do whatever they want and there are no real consequences for it.

You're talking about the Finance class, right?

Alright, the term 'liberal' is driving me nuts by this point (and I consider myself a pragmatist). It's as bad as the other side saying 'corporate pig' every two minutes. Leave it out - it makes for a more reasoned argument.

Yes, please! Everyone is so quick to throw out their favorite labels. It doesn't help. Talk about income levels, wealth, work, taxes, social programs, etc.

Labels are part of the bullhorn. Set up a good old Red vs Blue and distract them from the Green class.

Thanks for the reply, dcarrigg. It needs to be said.

+1


I could get behind removing social programs. But could we please remove the need for them first? People need a way to earn a living. Why are there no jobs? How about a solution for that other than "Get a job, you bum!".

A lot of the problems we want to fix are reactions to situations caused by deeper problems. Don't pull the life support equipment until after you fix the patient.

[Chris Coles]

Re: London's Burning (& Birmingham, Leeds, Croydon...)

+1


I could get behind removing social programs. But could we please remove the need for them first? People need a way to earn a living. Why are there no jobs? How about a solution for that other than "Get a job, you bum!".

A lot of the problems we want to fix are reactions to situations caused by deeper problems. Don't pull the life support equipment until after you fix the patient.

Absolutely correctly stated.

[shiny!]

Re: London's Burning (& Birmingham, Leeds, Croydon...)

You're talking about the Finance class, right?


Yes, please! Everyone is so quick to throw out their favorite labels. It doesn't help. Talk about income levels, wealth, work, taxes, social programs, etc.

Labels are part of the bullhorn. Set up a good old Red vs Blue and distract them from the Green class.

+1


I could get behind removing social programs. But could we please remove the need for them first? People need a way to earn a living. Why are there no jobs? How about a solution for that other than "Get a job, you bum!".

A lot of the problems we want to fix are reactions to situations caused by deeper problems. Don't pull the life support equipment until after you fix the patient.

You are right, of course, but what happens in actuality is that the social programs take on a life of their own after awhile. They become a job source for the bureaucrats that run them, and the only way of life for the recipients. Bureaucrats never think about, "how can people successfully become self-reliant?" "how can we put ourselves out of a job?", but only, "how should the funds be disbursed?"

[chr5648]

Re: London's Burning (& Birmingham, Leeds, Croydon...)

The real problem with social security and other cash flow payment schemes, is that it changes the time preference/orientation of a society. A future time oriented society would not just look at present consumption but, would think about the future, saving, investing, building a society and institutions that will preserve civilization. This would require that people save for their own retirement, their own children, etc. By implementing social security and other welfare policy tools, the time orientation of a society changes to a present orientation and present consumption. Without concern for the future, whether that is retirement, security, progeny, etc. One is no longer a citizen but consumer, free to think about present gratification and hedonistic pleasures.

Modern liberal democratic governments of the west have been engineering a present time orientation for a long time. The consequences are coming home to roost.

[jiimbergin]

Re: London's Burning (& Birmingham, Leeds, Croydon...)

You are right, of course, but what happens in actuality is that the social programs take on a life of their own after awhile. They become a job source for the bureaucrats that run them, and the only way of life for the recipients. Bureaucrats never think about, "how can people successfully become self-reliant?" "how can we put ourselves out of a job?", but only, "how should the funds be disbursed?"

+1

[Starving Steve]

Re: London's Burning (& Birmingham, Leeds, Croydon...)

The real problem with social security and other cash flow payment schemes, is that it changes the time preference/orientation of a society. A future time oriented society would not just look at present consumption but, would think about the future, saving, investing, building a society and institutions that will preserve civilization. This would require that people save for their own retirement, their own children, etc. By implementing social security and other welfare policy tools, the time orientation of a society changes to a present orientation and present consumption. Without concern for the future, whether that is retirement, security, progeny, etc. One is no longer a citizen but consumer, free to think about present gratification and hedonistic pleasures.

Modern liberal democratic governments of the west have been engineering a present time orientation for a long time. The consequences are coming home to roost.

I disagree. I believe that govn't can and should help people. I believe that medical care for everyone, social security for the elderly, bank deposit insurance and securities investment protection are the responsibility of government.

I view the problem to-day that we are experiencing, apparently worldwide, is that governments have been infiltrated by thieves who have pocketed public funds and/or have lived off of the public purse.

There are other problems with government, too. We have had inflationists destroying the currencies, worldwide. We also have zero interest rates ( negative real interest rates ) which have PUNISHED people who save and invest, also PUNISHED workers by de-valuing their wages, and also PUNISHED the young for having to inherit government deficits.

And then, the worse times get, we end-up with gangs, hooligans, and criminals rampaging through the streets. This is quite a mix, and I haven't even mentioned the terrorists in the Middle East who are intent upon destroying western civilization.

Govn't can and should help people because govn't has the taxing authority to do so. Govn't can also drive-down the cost of living by pursuing monetary policies 180-degrees opposite to those in place now. Govn't can and should provide a social safety net for the people. Govn't can and should initiate public-works projects which add real value to the economy such as constructing public hospitals, constructing hydro-electric dams, high-speed roads, high-speed passenger rail-lines, atomic power plants, produce synthetic oil derived from tar sands and coal deposits, and govn't can build sea-water filtration and pumping plants, not to mention build water aqueducts, canals, seaways, levies, and bridges...... All that it would take ar govn'ts with the vision and the will to do these things.

We begin by raising interest rates, rewarding thrift, returning to gold-backing of the currency, raising the value of the currency, de-flating the economy, raising taxes, taxing consumption, exporting everything, innovating, and digging-out of this debt-hole.

And as I have written many times in the past here, every student in economics classes in universities should just throw their textbooks at their professors and walk-out.

[llanlad2]

Re: London's Burning (& Birmingham, Leeds, Croydon...)

As I am sure many are aware riots are not a modern thing. They existed before socialism and entitlements.
As an example I've dug up a piece on the "swing" riots of the 1800s in the UK as I think there is commonality between then and now.

THE SWING RIOTS (source wikipedia)

Early nineteenth century England was virtually unique among major nations in having no class of landed smallholding peasantry.[8] Probably one of the main reasons for the Swing Riots were the Enclosure Acts of rural England.[9] Between 1770 and 1830 six million acres of common land were enclosed.[9] The common land had been used by the poor of the countryside for centuries to graze their animals and grow their own produce.[9] This land was divided up among the large local landowners, leaving the landless farmworkers solely dependent upon offering their labour to their richer neighbours for a cash wage. [9] Whilst this may have offered a tolerable living during the boom years of the Napoleonic wars, when labour had been in short supply and corn prices had been high, the coming of peace in 1815 brought with it plummeting grain prices and an oversupply of labour.[8] According to the Hammonds Enclosure was fatal to three classes: the small farmer, the cottager and the squatter.[10][11] Before enclosure the cottager was a labourer with land, after enclosure he was a labourer without land.[12]

In the 1780s workers would be taken on at annual hiring fairs (or mops), to serve for a whole year.[13] In this period the worker would receive payment in kind and in cash from his or her employer, would often work at his side, and would commonly share meals at the employer's table.[13] As time went by the gulf between farmer and employee widened.[13] Workers were hired on stricter cash-only contracts, which ran for shorter and shorter periods.[13] At first monthly terms became the norm; later contracts were offered for as little as a week at a time.[13] Between the years 1750-1850 the farm labourer faced the loss of his land, the transformation of his contract and the sharp deterioration of his economic situation and by the time of the 1830 riots had retained very little of his former status except the right to parish relief, under the "Old Poor Law" system.[14]

The Act of Settlement in 1662, had confined relief strictly to those who were natives of the parish.[15] The poor law system charged a "Parish Rate" to landowners and tenants, which was used to provide relief payments to settled residents of the parish who were ill or out of work.[15] These payments were minimal, and at times degrading conditions were required for their receipt. As more and more people became dependent on parish relief, ratepayers rebelled ever more loudly against the costs, and a lower and lower level of relief was offered. Three and a half "one gallon" bread loaves were considered necessary for a man in Berkshire in 1795. However provision had fallen to just two similar-sized loaves being provided in 1817 Wiltshire. The way in which poor law funds were disbursed led to a further reduction in agricultural wages, since farmers would pay their workers as little as possible, knowing that the parish fund would top up wages to a basic subsistence level (see Speenhamland system).[16]

To this mixture was added the burden of the church tithe.[17] Originally this had been the church's right to a tenth of the parish harvest.[17] However the earlier collection of goods in kind had been replaced by a cash levy that was payable to the Church of England Parson and went to pay his (often considerable) wages. [18]The cash levy was generally rigorously enforced, whether the resident was a Church member or not, and the sum demanded was often far higher than a poor person could afford.[18] Calls for a large reduction in the tithe payment were prominent among the demands of the rioters.[18]

The point is ultimately underemployed/unemployed people end up getting relatively poorer, frustrated and start rioting. It's a gradual process that may take years.
In the 1800s it was the result of enclosure and agricultural revoloution leading to lack of access to land and loss of long term guaranteed work. Present day 20 years of cheap credit has led to asset land/house prices going to beyond the reach of anyone under 30. Rents are huge. Banks in effect own the property. Corporatism has led to erosion of private businesses and offshoring. Minimum wage McDonalds jobs are all that are on offer for the uneducated "labourer" And the Govt still demands tax on what meagre spendings you have (a la the church). The youth of today are no more able to "get a job" than the farmworker of yesteryear.

So the solution? Clearly for the rioting a crackdown is required. Thereafter. Well unless a new revolution to follow the industrial one comes along to create new jobs I say give em all a free telly with free subscription to cable and legalise dope. That ought to keep em occupied. And I expect banning of advertising on childrens TV (a la Scandinavia) to happen soon. Conspicuous consumerism as a religion had had its day.

[llanlad2]

Re: London's Burning (& Birmingham, Leeds, Croydon...)

The real problem with social security and other cash flow payment schemes, is that it changes the time preference/orientation of a society. A future time oriented society would not just look at present consumption but, would think about the future, saving, investing, building a society and institutions that will preserve civilization. This would require that people save for their own retirement, their own children, etc. By implementing social security and other welfare policy tools, the time orientation of a society changes to a present orientation and present consumption. Without concern for the future, whether that is retirement, security, progeny, etc. One is no longer a citizen but consumer, free to think about present gratification and hedonistic pleasures.

Modern liberal democratic governments of the west have been engineering a present time orientation for a long time. The consequences are coming home to roost.

It's an interesting thesis. Could you point out a system/society that is future oriented that isn't a liberal democratic government?
I would argue that we(in the UK and US) are present time oriented due to globalisation and corporatisation.Time is money. Money and profits now matter more than the future. Ergo as a CEO I don't care if the company I run doesn't exist in the future so long as I make my bucks now.
Germans are very future orientated culturally despite being liberal and democratic. However they have a system that supports private capital over corporate capital. Consequently many family run businesses exist that plan for the future. Corporations are present oriented unless you have someone at the helm who really has passion for the company. (Steve Jobs maybe)

I agree with you that we've turned into consumers rather than citizens. But it's advertising by private companies that have done that not liberal democratic governments. Governments can't even stop people from smoking, drinking and taking drugs so God knows how they are supposed to have been so succesful at manipulating our time preference orientation.

[unlucky]

Re: London's Burning (& Birmingham, Leeds, Croydon...)

Youth unemployment in the UK is at record levels. Obviously that's a consideration when you think about the causes of these riots. But it can't be the only factor, and may not even be the most important.

The Telegraph had an interactive chart of youth unemployment rates across Europe. The UK is by no means that highest. Sweden, surprisingly, is higher. The highest rates are in the PIGS. While some of the PIGS have seen political rioting/protests, none of them have seen the sort of purely destructive riots seen in the UK.

The vast majority of unemployed youths in the UK (more than 1 in 5) are not rioting.

[dcarrigg]

Re: London's Burning (& Birmingham, Leeds, Croydon...)

While some of the PIGS have seen political rioting/protests, none of them have seen the sort of purely destructive riots seen in the UK.

Never underestimate the ability for anglos to think of themselves as special...

Let me straighten this out with pictures from a few european countries. Three per country. Maybe England's late to the party...

Greece this year:







Portugal this year:








France last year







Northern Ireland this year








Spain this year:[/SIZE]







Italian riots last year








Albania this year







Croatia this year

[lakedaemonian]

Re: London's Burning (& Birmingham, Leeds, Croydon...)

Youth unemployment in the UK is at record levels. Obviously that's a consideration when you think about the causes of these riots. But it can't be the only factor, and may not even be the most important.

The Telegraph had an interactive chart of youth unemployment rates across Europe. The UK is by no means that highest. Sweden, surprisingly, is higher. The highest rates are in the PIGS. While some of the PIGS have seen political rioting/protests, none of them have seen the sort of purely destructive riots seen in the UK.

The vast majority of unemployed youths in the UK (more than 1 in 5) are not rioting.

I've been keeping an eye on the youth unemployment rates in Europe for the last couple of years as a possible indicator of social unrest.

Based on that alone, one would assume Spain would be suffering the most from rising civil disturbance and crime.

But if you include rather unscientific anecdotes like football hooliganism relative to each nation(for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heysel_Stadium_disaster ) as well as how "martial" a society is(definitely applies to UK) it might go some way in explaining it......but in both instances football hooliganism and a martial society being catalysts to spark civil disturbances at "lower temperatures" might be nullified in the example of Germany(although Germany has a MUCH lower youth unemployment rate) which is stereotyped as a martial society and it's football hooliganism while significant, hasn't generated any significant global media in terms of death/injury over the years as UK football hooliganism has.

Spain is insanely passionate about football, but the level of violence(at least leading to injury/death as opposed to proerty damage) anecdotally seems much lower than elsewhere...and Spain doesn't appear to be a particularly martial society in my limited experience.

Or maybe different societies act out differently.....in the case of 70's/80's Germany you had the Baader-Meinhoff and Red Army Faction domestic terror groups....same with Greece in the 70's with numerous domestic terror groups.

Different societies require different levers pulled in different amounts to create a different spark for similar outcomes.

All unscientific and anecdotal, but a fascinating topic worth trying to measure and analyse.....possible future artistic-science like weather and economics?

At the end of the day I'm left with that image from the film Children of Men with Clive Owen's character visiting his wealthy/powerful cousin in the well-guarded and gated community with the flying pig balloons in the background.....while the rest of the country riots and crumbles.

[unlucky]

Re: London's Burning (& Birmingham, Leeds, Croydon...)

Never underestimate the ability for anglos to think of themselves as special...

Let me straighten this out with pictures from a few european countries. Three per country. Maybe England's late to the party...

But but but... surely those were principled riots with a definite aim and purpose!

OK, point taken!