Well let's include oligopolies in this too.

>In a free market, monopolies should only arise if a company is providing an objectively better product (both in quality and pricing) than

The free market does not ensure better products and services for customers, it ensures freedom for companies to pursue profit how they see fit which sometimes results in better products or services.

Also what about the workers? Regulation of the market is one of the keys of worker protection. What do you want to rely on? Businesses beingnice, consumerssuddenly en masse developing the ability for deep empathy and to limit themselves for people they will never meet?

>The opposition to net neutrality is a great recent example

Some part of this is corporate competiveness even when you don't think it is. Check out this book for example if you're interested

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Grassroots-Hire-Consultants-American-Democracy/dp/1107619017

But anyhow in this case Amazon, Facebook, Google, Netflix, Twitter, etc public support is an alliance of convenience not true consensus building. If you want to tell me Amazon care about anything but profit I've got a bridge to sell you.

>In either case, that's still good for consumers and competitors should eventually arise once that ceases to be the case. Someone will always come along with a better idea

New boss, same as the old boss. This only seems like a good thing if you are pretty satisfied with the status quo.

>What you have in the US, however, is companies lobbying the government for laws beneficial to them...You also wouldn't have banks and companies that are "too big to fail" because, under true free market economics, a business fails for a reason.

Recreating some kind of rehash of theeconomic conditions of the 1800s with less huge corporations and a lot more mid-sized competive businesses and freeing the market would result in a similar outcome. "Crony capitalism" is the natural outcome of free market capitalism not a mistake that was made. You can fight it with regulation, but you'll always be fighting it until we transition away from capitalism.

Also lets say you want to start a bookshop and I already own a chain, I pay your landlord double rent once your contract expires, in a free market that is ok but is a clear example of me gaining from being unethical and not by treating workers or customers right. There are well paid people who think up and plan strategies like this as their job.

This line of argument puts you at odds with lots of social democrats. It's pretty close to liberatarian arguments.

I will try, but it is fairly complex. Corrections welcomed.

A great overview of all this stuff is in "Brexit: What the hell happens now?" by Ian Dunt. Recommended reading.

Overview

The Single Market and the Customs Union put together are a bunch of countries who collaborate to allow each other to buy and sell goods without any interference. Just as Birmingham and Glasgow are able to trade within the UK just by driving the goods from A to B, so France and Germany can trade within the EU (all EU countries are member of both the SM and the CU).

The Single Market

Interference (also called "trade barriers" or "friction") which exist outside the EU includes stuff like tariffs (taxes on goods that are imported to the market), quotas (only allowing a maximum amount of goods in), and compliance checks.

The Single Market is concerned with Compliance Checks, and the Customs Union is concerned with tariffs and quotas.

Compliance checks mean (for example) that if you want to sell a vacuum cleaner in the EU, it has to conform to the EU regulations. Maximum power consumption, maybe. Various safety standards.

To get your vacuum cleaner certified as conforming to all the EU regulations takes time and costs a lot. You have to pay an authorised body to make the checks and get it certified.

Then, when your vacuums arrive at the border, Customs officers are going to open the lorry and check that they are what you have said they are on the shipping manifest. This also takes time. They might also send one machine off for testing, to make sure you really are complying. Otherwise smugglers could just send any old thing through, once they got certified.

Your goods can be delayed for days or even weeks due to border checks.

The Single Market allows France to send goods to Poland (for example) without the lorry being stopped even once for such checks. The goods are assumed to be compliant with all EU rules and regulations because they originate within the Single Market. The lorry just sails on through.

Though that is also, in part, due to the Customs Union.

The Customs Union

The Customs Union is the way that the EU deals with tariffs on goods coming in to the Single Market from non-EU countries (as opposed to goods travelling around inside the market, between France and Poland).

All the countries in the Single Market have to impose the same tariffs on goods that come from outside. Otherwise, if Ireland charged 5% on (say) Chinese tea, but France charged 10%, suppliers would send all their tea to Ireland and then transport it (via the single market - with no lorry stops) to France. They can then sell it cheaper in France than they should be able to.

So France makes sure that they have the same tariff as Ireland.

Quotas (maximum amount allowed to be imported) are also shared. The EU (as a body) might agree with the USA that the EU will impose a 2% tariff on American air conditioners, and there will be a quota of 10,000 per year. US companies can then sell 10,000 air con units to the countries in the Customs Union. Anywhere in it. But once that quota is filled, the US companies have to stop selling until next year.

Having all the Customs Union countries share the quotas is again important because otherwise the USA could import 5,000 to Ireland, and then 6,000 to France - thus exceeding the limit. So the countries must share the quotas and let each other know how many have come in.

Goods within a Customs Union can move more freely than those outside. But there are limits.

Turkey (partial Customs Union only)

Turkey currently has a Customs Union with the EU. But it only relates to certain goods. For these goods, Turkey pays no tariff and has no quota when exporting to the EU. Turkey also charges the same tariff and enforces the same external quotas as the EU does - so no outside countries get an advantage by importing through Turkey.

However, this means that Turkey have to obey EU laws and regulations for all the goods which are covered by their Customs Union. Otherwise, firms could just move to Turkey, bypass regulations, and then move the cheaper goods into the EU and sell them there.

But since not all goods are covered, lorries will be checked to see that they are carrying what they claim to be carrying. There is still a "hard border" between Turkey and the UK, despite there being a Customs Union.

Norway (Single Market only)

Norway is in a different position: they are in the Single Market but not in the Customs Union. They can set their own tariffs with other countries. But goods can pass (almost) freely over the border to the EU. Because Norway are in the Single Market and follow all the laws and regulations, goods do not have to be checked for compliance (they will be checked by Norway on arrival from other countries and are from then on fine). The Norway border means you stop, tell the customs agent what you are carrying, pay any tariffs necessary (or prove they have been paid) and then carry on about your business.

So note that being in either a Customs Union or the Single Market still means that you have to have a hard border, with stops and checks in order to preserve the integrity of those bodies. Otherwise they become easy to bypass.

EU countries (both)

EU countries are in both, so there are no border checks needed for any traffic going between EU countries. At least, not for goods. They might want to check for illegal immigrants, and countries can still close their borders for security reasons (eg a terrorist is on the loose so all passports will be checked and searches may be made).

EEA

The EEA is a group of countries which subscribe to the Four Freedoms of the Single Market. Not all countries are in the EU. Norway, Switzerland, and Iceland are not in the EU but are in the EEA.

Those countries have to follow most EU laws and regulations. Norway has exemptions for fishing and agriculture.

The EEA is open to members of the EU, and members of EFTA (European Free Trade Association). EFTA consists of Iceland, Lichtenstein, Norway, and Switzerland.

EFTA was originally set up to compete with the EU (or the EEC as it was then called). The UK was a founding member. However, it became clear that the EEC was doing a lot better. The UK and Denmark withdrew in 1973, and joined the EU instead. Austria, Finland, Portugal, and Sweden later followed suit.

The remaining countries (Norway, Switzerland, Lichtenstein, and Iceland) are now in the EU Single Market to a greater or lesser degree but are not in the Customs Union.

Implications of withdrawing

Withdrawing from the Customs Union would allow the UK to do its own trade deals in terms of tariff and quotas. It would introduce paperwork required for goods to cross between the EU and the UK and payment of tariffs (unless a free trade agreement is in place - but that would probably introduce a "country of origin" check so that the USA couldn't send goods to the UK for a lower tariff and then move them into the EU.

In UK terms, this would mean goods from Birmingham would be stopped at the Scottish border while customs taxed them and made sure they were from England.


Withdrawing from the Single Market would require paperwork, compliance checks, lorry searches. A much harder border to sustain those.

In UK terms, this would mean the Scottish border agents physically examining the goods in the lorries, taking one for testing, and forcing the lorry to wait until the process completed. This could take weeks. Agricultural produce can spoil. That's tough luck and the risk the farmer took when they accepted an order from outside their free trade area. This was one of the primary drivers behind creating the EU and allowing "frictionless" trade - trade without these checks.

Withdrawing from both means all of the above.

Hope that helps! Any questions, ask.

David Laws in his accounts of the negotiations:

> [Besides the option of supply and confidence] there was, according to the Conservative leader, ‘a case for going further’ into a full coalition. The case was based in part on the need to tackle ‘the biggest threat’ to our national interest – Britain’s huge budget deficit.
That required, according to Mr Cameron, ‘a strong, stable government that lasts [and] . . . which has the support of the public to take the difficult decisions that are needed. . .’

> [...]

> The prizes for Mr Cameron were obvious: government, not opposition; stability, not chaos; joint responsibility for tough decisions, not sole blame for the painful cuts to come; and an opportunity to change the entire perception of the Conservative Party and to reshape British politics.

And later, more explicitly:

>Finally, David Cameron and his senior team seemed to have decided that a coalition agreement was not merely something that they wished to be seen to be trying to secure; it was something that they actually wanted to secure. This may have been because of doubts about how easy it would be to fight and win the second election, which we all felt was inevitable if a coalition agreement could not be struck. But there were also, surely, major advantages of a coalition from both a national and a Conservative Party perspective. The coalition gave the Conservatives the votes to govern strongly and to push through tough measures on the economy, while getting another political party to share the pain.

Well…

As to those with absurd views, like those about lizards, I would likely ignore them. However, to suggest that readings of New Labour as having conservative tendencies is anything like believing people in power are secretly lizards is itself the sort of claim that I would normally like to ignore... (and which you would mock).

Moving on...

Note first that you’ve yet again conflated Conservative with conservative. I’ve never maintained that New Labour was a Conservative party, only that in many respects it was conservative. Think of the following aspects: privatisation of public assets, anti-trade union reform, income tax cuts for the wealthy. All of these things indisputably occurred under Blair, and they were an extension of the kind of conservative approach to economics and politics that Thatcher introduced. It’s neoliberal ideology in practice, and neoliberalism was first advanced by right-wing think tanks and pressure groups.

Consistent with neoliberalism, big business effectively lobbied Blair’s Labour MPs, and this was really quite unprecedented for Labour. There were many well-publicised scandals about this—I didn’t mention Hewitt and Hoon for no reason in my earlier posts. Add to it Blunkett, Milburn, (David) Milliband, Byers, and others. They satisfied the demands of certain big business firms, by reducing relevant trade union power, and paving the way for privatisation “reform”; and they really benefitted, personally, from these manoeuvres. This is a matter of public record.

The relationship with right-wing press, facilitated by Blair and Campbell, was also crucial in securing and maintaining New Labour’s power. Blair became Godfather of one of Rupert Murdoch’s children. Strong relationships with media barons and other wealthy individuals were previously the preserve of conservative figures. Yet Mandelson said that he was “intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich” and holidayed with a Russian Oligarch (along with a young George Osborne, no less!).

Blair consistently ignored what Trade Union groups had concluded (e.g., demands on renationalising and social housing). His ’97 election pledge included not increasing taxes on the rich; indeed, his reign saw him gradually reduce corporation tax. (Brown was very effective at slashing this.) As you’ll see from another debate in this thread, public spending did increase, which made it look less conservative. Yet, traditional left policies were abandoned here, since public services suffered when privatisation carved out more in-roads than even under Thatcher.

When I said that New Labour was essentially conservative, this is what I meant. They were, in some cases quite transparently, committed to a right-wing political-economic policy in neoliberalism. Any claim as glib and quick as "New Labour were the same as the Conservatives" (note the big 'C') is likely not to be supported by a range of intellectuals. But the subtler point I've been arguing is indeed supported by many. A cursory Google search will help you.

Here are some to get you started:

Bob Jessop

Stuart Hall

Paul Smith

Owen Jones

Of course, there are plenty more besides. And there will be plenty of neoliberals who dispute the key points. But that doesn't take away from these and other authors as presenting an intelligible, respected opinion to the effect that New Labour continued elements of Thatcherism which are right wing in nature. That's a view that you're either misrepresenting (with your big 'C'), or simply laughing at.

I find Moore very hit and miss, myself. I love "From Hell", but I really do not like super-hero stuff, and I found his "Promethea" series to be just dull, really.

I'd recommend "Maus" above all others if somebody wants to explore the genre. It won a Pulitzer Prize for good reason :)

You haven't listed (and shouldn't miss) "The Arrival", which is beautifully illustrated. It contains zero words, yet tells a beautiful story.

> because it doesn't seek to be and overall ideology

I think that's a really remarkable thing to say.

> it helps people as individuals identify where they want to go, why and the path to get there

Sure, within the extremely narrow constraints of dialectical materialism. Later strains of Marxism famously don't prescribe alternative societies, and it was something that Adorno, Foucault and others were strongly criticised for. More broadly, I don't think utopian, teleological ideologies are a good thing. Amartya Sen has a great critique of this in his response to John Rawls.

> They weren't Marxists, they were being agitated, inspired and led by Marxists.

By a new breed of demagogue. I don't think that construction is productive, as it gives as much credence to Trumpian populists as it does to explosive figures like Lenin.

> Ho Chi Mihn? Or the Americans? Or the French? D:

The Best & The Brightest - Halberstam

What Simon Wren-Lewis wrote (included in Economics for the Many ed. John McDonnell), with more context, was

​

>Let us suppose the IFS was correct, and the tax measures outlined by Labour were insufficient to match their proposed spending increases. There were two possibilities. First, and the most likely given the Brexit slowdown, interest rates would have remained at their lower bound. In that case the FCR would have said that the resulting fiscal stimulus was entirely appropriate and welcome. The fact that the numbers 'did not add up' would have been a welcome feature of Labour's manifesto, because it would add to the fiscal stimulus. Second, if despite everything the economy suddenly recovered strongly, the deficit would fall as a result and Labour may well have been able to fund all the spending increases and still stay within the FCR. As a result, the fact that the numbers might not have added up was largely irrelevant, and yet it was a central theme for mediamacro.
>
>At some point in the next five years there will be a general election which Labour have an excellent chance of winning. Their fiscal decisions will be guided by a fiscal rule that would not have given us 2010 austerity, and represents state-of-the-art macro-economic thinking.

even from a cursory scan it's clear that May got this very wrong

Everyone on the left should read 'The Political Brain'. It explains the importance of emotions in how people decide to vote.

Basically, when it comes down to emotional brain vs rational brain, people will always side with their emotions.

People don't sit down and study manifestos before they decide who to vote for, they use the values of the party, leader, and a few key policies the party articulates to decide which party matches their values most closely.

TL;DR: People are emotional creatures and we need to learn how to appeal to that.

There's a book called "Learning Legal Rules" which I read at the start of my law studies which is a bit dense but it's a really good introduction to how the law and the judicial system in the UK works - unfortunately that kind of stuff is too dry to make really interesting haha. I'd recommend it if you read it in bits and pieces rather than trying to go through the entire thing.

You can get the penultimate edition for £2.81 on Amazon.

The British General Election of 2015 is a genuinely fascinating read. Crucial for a non-polemic understanding why we lost and what we need to do to win again.

this book is called "dangerous hero: corbyn's ruthless plot for power".

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Dangerous-Hero-Corbyns-Ruthless-Power/dp/0008299579

if waiting 37 years without doing anything to get power, then having power unexpectedly fall into his lap when he was pressured into running for leader was his plan all along, then you've got to be impressed. nailed it. playing the long game and 4D chess at the same time.

I have researched war and weaponry for practically all of my literate life. I have been told that this is a good book ( FT review ), you could probably get it for a good rate second hand or order it in from a library.

Edit: Does anyone actually have Corbyn's foreword to see if he condemned the anti-Semitism?


___
Here's a PDF of the book:

http://files.libertyfund.org/files/127/0052_Bk.pdf

Can someone point to something overtly anti-Semitic in it?

Edit:

It's there, page 64.
_

Edit: So I bought the Kindle edition here which is supposed to have Corbyn's foreword. It doesn't.

The Guardian describes it as "Changed the contours of social dialogue." So it's clearly not controversial to praise the book's academic merits.

the bolsheviks were all pricks^1

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Escape-Camp-14-remarkable-odyssey/dp/0330519549

I dont, I'm afraid.

All I know is it's from this edition:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Imperialism-Study-J-Hobson/dp/0851247881

KGB secret archives are filled with information about what MPs in various European countries were on the payroll or agents of influence. Allende was on their payroll too.

Here is the mobile version of your link