Ben Houchens on Unherd

Alvez_48

Alvez_48

Well-known member

Freddie Sayers interviews Ben Houchens, I've not lived in the north east for a long time so didn't know much about Ben but horn tooting aside he came across pretty well.

Not that I agree with his economic theory entirely but my hatred for Friedman's economic views I have definitely softened over the years.
 
He does come across well and speaks well for this region. The fact that he is becoming an ism will only strengthen his hand.
 
Alvez_48 said:

Freddie Sayers interviews Ben Houchens, I've not lived in the north east for a long time so didn't know much about Ben but horn tooting aside he came across pretty well.

Not that I agree with his economic theory entirely but my hatred for Friedman's economic views I have definitely softened over the years.
Click to expand...

Why/how have they softened?
 
Lefty said:
Why/how have they softened?
Click to expand...

I used to thoroughly disagree with his assessment of capitalism being the only thing that has made poor people better off and that's why socialism is a terrible idea.

I actually see a chunk of truth to it these days in the narrowest sense.
 
Since the age of 16 when I first studied economics I have always believed in taking the best of capitalism and mixing it with the best of socialism. Even the NHS which is seen as pure socialism free goods and services and used some capitalism to ensure it works better. For example allowing its staff to work part time and use their time to also work in the private sector. All people still get treatment free of charge (socialism), some consultants would leave the NHS if they were forced to work 100% for the NHS (capitalism). Another example Rolls Royce was nationlised in 1971 to save it from collapse and then 1987 privatised where it has prospered up to Covid19.
 
Enjoyed that. Comes across well.

capitalism with a conscience and the importance of doing what you say you’re going to do
 
Last edited:
El Guapo said:
Enjoyed that. Comes across well.

capitalism with a conscience
Click to expand...

Ah yes. The caring face of capitalism. No such thing. Company officers are fiscally obliged to maximise profits for the owners. If that requires slavery, deaths of people or death of the planet then so be it.
Houchen is a chameleon shamelessly applying socialism where it suits. Almost literally the oldest trick in the book.

In the latter 19th century Otto von Bismarck introduced social insurance in Prussia making it one of the first, if not the first, country to do so. Bismarck was a reactionary conservative authoritarian nationalist. He did it to head off the Social Democrats in the Reichstag who were pressing for progressive policies such as social insurance. It was a completely cynical ploy based on keeping and increasing his cliques powers by pretending to give a fcuk about the plebs. It also gave him a healthier pool for the Prussian military and look where that ended up.
 
ThePrisoner said:
Ah yes. The caring face of capitalism. No such thing. Company officers are fiscally obliged to maximise profits for the owners. If that requires slavery, deaths of people or death of the planet then so be it.
Houchen is a chameleon shamelessly applying socialism where it suits. Almost literally the oldest trick in the book.

In the latter 19th century Otto von Bismarck introduced social insurance in Prussia making it one of the first, if not the first, country to do so. Bismarck was a reactionary conservative authoritarian nationalist. He did it to head off the Social Democrats in the Reichstag who were pressing for progressive policies such as social insurance. It was a completely cynical ploy based on keeping and increasing his cliques powers by pretending to give a fcuk about the plebs. It also gave him a healthier pool for the Prussian military and look where that ended up.
Click to expand...
I’m not a historian
 
ThePrisoner said:
Ah yes. The caring face of capitalism. No such thing. Company officers are fiscally obliged to maximise profits for the owners. If that requires slavery, deaths of people or death of the planet then so be it.
Houchen is a chameleon shamelessly applying socialism where it suits. Almost literally the oldest trick in the book.

In the latter 19th century Otto von Bismarck introduced social insurance in Prussia making it one of the first, if not the first, country to do so. Bismarck was a reactionary conservative authoritarian nationalist. He did it to head off the Social Democrats in the Reichstag who were pressing for progressive policies such as social insurance. It was a completely cynical ploy based on keeping and increasing his cliques powers by pretending to give a fcuk about the plebs. It also gave him a healthier pool for the Prussian military and look where that ended up.
Click to expand...
No, they're not. Limited companies have personage. Officers of the company are supposed to act in the interests of the company. Business schools try to equate this to the maximisation of shareholder value a la Milton Friedman, but this has no basis in law
 
El Guapo said:
Capitalism with a conscience.
Click to expand...
I prefer the term limited socialism, capitalism needs so many railguards to stop the rich getting richer, or to be more accurate the poor getting poorer, that it can barely be called capitalism anymore. Certainly not free market economics.
 
JackG said:
No, they're not. Limited companies have personage. Officers of the company are supposed to act in the interests of the company. Business schools try to equate this to the maximisation of shareholder value a la Milton Friedman, but this has no basis in law
Click to expand...
It's seen as the triple bottom line this days, shareholders expect financial returns but companies expect social and environmental returns also to ensure long term success. However, and here's the kicker, this isn't really something that many Tory's care about, certainly not the ones who work in investment companies and are trying to maximise return for clients money, then sell. The greed of free market capitalism is always lurking to ruin the more ethical corporations.
 
Large private busineses have a portfolio of stakeholders to please nowadays. I would say few medium to large businesses fully maximise profits. Amazon officially makes very little profit, however the owner tries to increase the share price. Their latest ads say they are currently converting all their delivery vans to electric to help the planet according to them implying it is costing them money to do so.

Bismarck is an interesting example of self interest - it worked for him as he was in power of some sort until he died in 1934. Germany industralised very quickly like Middlesbrough, with lots of workers crowded in tightly who have come off the land, they were not happy with their lot. In the UK the Liberals with Winston Churchill soon copied Germany introducing free state education in 1902 and unemployment & sickness benefit and state pensions, soon after. I don't think they did it because they loved working class people, but it reduced the appeal of the Labour Party which was set up in 1900, but never got into full power till 1945. In Russia there were not many economic reforms and look what happened in 1917.
 
Redwurzel said:
Large private busineses have a portfolio of stakeholders to please nowadays. I would say few medium to large businesses fully maximise profits. Amazon officially makes very little profit, however the owner tries to increase the share price. Their latest ads say they are currently converting all their delivery vans to electric to help the planet according to them implying it is costing them money to do so.

Bismarck is an interesting example of self interest - it worked for him as he was in power of some sort until he died in 1934. Germany industralised very quickly like Middlesbrough, with lots of workers crowded in tightly who have come off the land, they were not happy with their lot. In the UK the Liberals with Winston Churchill soon copied Germany introducing free state education in 1902 and unemployment & sickness benefit and state pensions, soon after. I don't think they did it because they loved working class people, but it reduced the appeal of the Labour Party which was set up in 1900, but never got into full power till 1945. In Russia there were not many economic reforms and look what happened in 1917.
Click to expand...
are we going to get our 1917 moment here? we're heading in that direction
 
BM - Russia didn't have a welfare state and social mobility was very limited. The Russian Parliament did not have the power the UK Parliament had. The secret police were strong in Russia before 1917.

In this country - around 65% of the population are property owners which to me moderates politics, certainly away from radical left wing politics.
 
Redwurzel said:
BM - Russia didn't have a welfare state and social mobility was very limited. The Russian Parliament did not have the power the UK Parliament had. The secret police were strong in Russia before 1917.

In this country - around 65% of the population are property owners which to me moderates politics, certainly away from radical left wing politics.
Click to expand...
I'd be more concerned with the dangerous radical right policies
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top