pap

One of us is wrong about what capitalism is all about. Might be me, might be you. I was under the illusion that the basic distinction between a capitalist economy and a planned economy falls into two camps. a) who owns the means of production b) the priorities of the means of production I ask again, what do you think capitalism is?

I think you may be slightly off the mark, Sergei. Bernard Matthew's business was built on selling as much of the turkey as possible by disguising it as something less rank.

What do you think capitalism is, Barry? Give us a summary. Would be nice to be singing from the same hymn sheet.

Great example of how even respected media can spin a story. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20528352 It's not the insurers. The government doesn't have a responsiblity to secure its citizens. It's those gamblers rolling the dice on "picturesque at a discount". Arf.

I didn't answer the question for a couple of reasons . First, it's not your business (but not important). Second, dune or not, you're a needy little bollix. Take it as read I won't be responding to every one of your posts. Last, you're probably dune. If you're in the Arkles and you spot me, say hello.

We've heard all these revenge fantasies before, Mr Annoyed. Hypo failed to deliver a smack down to the mighty finch, as will you. You both talk a good game, but the moment he mentions that the dispute is over the alleged non-delivery of ********** ******, you'll button right up like our mate hypo.

Not just the replica shirts though, is it? The media will be obsessed with any Prem team Beckham plays for. I daresay a couple of their fixtures will be rearranged for television.

Ah, they need a couple of live ones too. Not too connected, mind.

It's certainly a little evil of capitalism, but not one that goes unremarked. Outsourcing call centres to places like India has been a universally unpopular move. No-one likes it, and you have banks like NatWest trading on their local personnel. I think it's particularly hard to take in countries like the US and UK because we were told we'd be a service economy after all the manufacturing went - yet this huge part of our service economy was being moved too, audibly so. Large corporations are shareholder-conscious. The moment one company is established in the Far East, its competitor will have to have a presence there to remain stock-competitive. If, over 10 years, company X looks like it'll makes more money than company Y because it has lower operational costs afforded by cheap labour, companies will buy company X stock. Doesn't matter how good your brand is; it's a race to the bottom.

On the rare chance that he was actually interested in coming here, we would be f**king mental not to take him. Yes, he's old - but so is Scholesy. He's also very very famous. We may not get the on-the-pitch impact that we did with Keegan (although I'd back Becks to put a shift in), but this would be bigger in terms of exposure than Keegan. I'm not suggesting we should go for him, but if turns up in Britannia Road and says "Hallo. I'd like to play for your football club. May be a small problem. I'm an international superstar with a famous wife and the eyes of the world's media are upon us", I'd suggest we find a way to navigate through those massive deficiencies.

Have you ever used Miggs' chat-up line, Bearsy? I'm interested in hearing in how it fares in the wild.

Love that you're back, dune.

Sorry mucker; haven't had the opportunity to respond until now. First of all, it is encouraging to see the thought you put into your proposals. Few bother to qualify their opinions with quite as much clarity. As for workability, I think most sensible things are workable as long as the will exists to make them work. For me, it comes down to a question of priorities. My personal opinion is that our first priority as humans is to sort the basics out, the mission-critical stuff if you like. I've mentioned this before but I've read an article which suggests that the UK would be 71% self-sufficient if imports stopped tomorrow. I'd actually back us to do better. We are very good in a crisis. In terms of alternate ideas about how you might secure food security, I'd suggest that most of the systems are already in place to do that. Consider the supply chain scenario of your local supermarket. They have a finite range of products which are largely determined by market research and/or successful trials in other locations. Each product has a unique bill of materials. Whether TESCO do it themselves or contract a third-party to do it, collectively, humanity knows how to bring a sausage roll to market. You can be assured that when someone says "ah, yeah - 100K more sausage rolls for TESCO in Bursledon", a system will be working behind the scenes, generating the relevant work orders, purchase orders to make sure it happens. I love the idea of a planned economy for basic food; as long as the basic standard is of a high quality; setting the standards for those who operate in the private sector. I've always found it amazing that the absolute cheapest food is the worst for you. I'd even argue that capitalism, and specifically, gradations within markets - have given rise to gastronomic abominations, such as the Pop Tart, Micro Chips or my personal favourite, the Pot Noodle - a dire product backed up by stupendously good advertising. Then you've got the purely practical decisions that people on low incomes are forced to make, buying sub-standard foods to hit a certain market. Bernard Matthews made his fortune on the premise that eating mechanically recovered turkey knackers was 'bootiful'.

Squint your eyes!

Yeah, that's why I felt a bit guilty. Hate the game, not the players, right Sergei?

I endorse the first statement. Juvenile unit #1 would endorse the second.

Mission critical = stuff we can't live without.

I think more than anything, that's what we need to work out. But broadly, all those things I mention. I have a real sense of being collectively rudderless at the moment. There is no great commission, no real sense of collective purpose. Stripped of its ideological nemeses in the Eastern Block and its positive associations with concepts like liberty, the naked purpose of capitalism, to make more stuff or money, seems depressingly hollow, yet it's one of the few things we all have in common. We need better ideas. Those can't come about unless we can come to some kind of consensus as to what is important. Right now, things are as important as their marketing budget dictates. Really no way to carry on.

And a firm going to the wall has no effect? Creditors, employees, etc.

Food security, energy security, health, prisons, police, housing, all that jazz. It's an extreme view, I know.

Never was a communist state either. There have been dictatorships with planned economies. Not quite the same thing. As for people making billions after the fall of communism, the main Russian beneficiaries were the bureaucratic class. Abramovich's brilliant money-making scheme? Sell state- subsidised natural resources at market prices. That's it. Capitalism shouldn't be allowed anywhere near anything that is "mission-critical". I'm all in favour of planned economy principles for the essentials of life.

Yes it did. Iceland responded by creating a new constitution, and negotiated with banks to get debt relief for a lot of its citizens. There has been talk of mortgage forgiveness, but no Icelandic official will say this has happened outside of bankruptcy or "outlier" conditions.

How would you even know what sort of cap it was?

And how would one make that argument? We've never really seen one.

Pipe down, dune.