Carryfast:
Finally is your name zb Blair or Cameron or are you at least a full on believer in their bs idea of economics. 
Pointless answering, as your assertions presume an agreeance on my part with the alternatives to Fordism, rather than the real truth is that youâre quite miffed I think your idea to use trade barriers will fail to bring back a good system that existed in a natural, organic state within a changing historical world. It is widely accepted Fordist capitalism failed to sustain in the USA and merged into a post Fordist state. Again. For reasons I mentioned earlier. If you donât even recognise that you better get back on google.
This is like pulling teeth
Carryfast:
Feel free to explain how a system,thatâs based on the artificial minimisation of wage levels by use of cheap labour in Communist countries like China.Or by immigration by a foreign low wage expectation workforce to oversupply the labour market.To the point where it requires widespread state intervention,either in the form of localised over supply/over development,and/or state housing benefits,in a doomed attempt to make housing costs affordable.Supposedly âhelpsâ so called âwhite collar aspirationsâ or in fact anyoneâs aspirations.Also how any of that doesnât fit the definition of âfalse trading conditionsâ.:
Well this is where history calls your mistake. It happened, rightly or wrongly. I have never said it âhelpsâ âwhite collar aspirationsâ, I was stating events that took place (-again, youâre incorrectly asserting I agree with the alternative). However, the disaffected blue collar worker tired of wage levels and returns that migrated away from consumer price points of goods produced within the closed sector, even before foreign commercial competition played its hand of you study it carefully. The natural tendency for those in power within Capitalist commerce is to take more, for less.
How will you stop it happening again? Trade barriersâŚ
Oh right. Next point carryfast.
James the cat:
Carryfast:
Firstly since when was the GDR or USSR run along Fordist Capitalist lines.
Okedok (whispers- by the way, countries arenât ârunâ according to Fordist lines, thatâs a model of production operating within a given country, but you knew that right? Iâll keep that blunder a secret donât worry.)
You seem to be confusing the idea of âmass productionâ with the Fordist closed loop âeconomic systemâ that allows the workforce to earn the disposable incomes required to buy the products being made by mass production.In doing so then adding to the demand for those products and thereby the demand for labour thereby increasing wage rates even more etc etc etc.That is the difference between the Capitalist Fordist system v the Communist one.
The Communist version of âFordist production methodsâ,under a âSocialist economic systemâ,being all about the mimimising of wage rates on a crusade against the decadance and economic self reliance which it sees as a threat to the dependency culture that justifies the existence of the socialist system.The result,unlike 1960âs America,being a load of zb cheap products which the downtrodden exploited workforce canât afford to buy at any price.While they get the bus,tram or train back to their state provided allocated zb flat.At least until the whole zb system collapses.
In this case weâve got the even worse situation of the combination of a Socialist type wage regime within the contradiction of a so called âCapitalistâ type cost of living structure.Which can obviously be solved only by going for the full on Socialist idea of state provided/controlled living standards to go with the Commy incomes regime.
In which case,as I said,the OPâs idea,of calling for less wages to maintain his state housing benefits provision and eligibility,fits in perfectly with the thoughts of zb Mao and Stalin.
James the cat:
From Harunito Shiomi, "Fordism transformed:the development of production methods in the automobile industry (lets see what ââ â â â â â â â â he has to say about Fordism not existing with the GDR. And trade restrictions within the GDR):-
"The GDR did try to utilize the advantages of mass production, where the possibilities of standardization and the adoption of large scale production could be used extensively. This was the case for instance, in ship building and later in the serial style construction of apartment blocks. In principle the GDRâs automobile industry was also organized on Fordist linesâŚ(oh dear on the first point CF 
)
âŚThe âTrabantâ, a 500cc two cylinder two-stoke car, began production at the end of 1957âŚ
âŚwith annual production runs of 100,000 and 50,000 cars, respectively (Waryburg -sic) there was no shortage of incentive for the adoption of Ford methods of mass production. Nor can the relevance of another Ford paradigm, the limited availability of a qualified workforce, be denied for East Germany in the 1950s,âŚ
âŚPrecisely the effort to practice âFordism in one countryâ (see Vobkamp and Wittke 1990) makes clear that the innovative power of the new production methods, as instanced above all in the car industry in West Germany, did not lie primarily in the utilization of âeconomics of scaleâ. Rather, the deepening integration into the world market in the 1950s offered the precondition for a high degree of division of labour, which bought considerable cost advantages, eased the transfer of technologies across borders, and hastened the adoption of innovations under pressure of competition. In contrast, the GDR had to develop and produce special machines and other high-tech inputs on her own, whereas the West German automobile industry was able to import such sophisticated devices from the USAâŚ"
Oh dear, oh deary me. Not looking good for those trade sanctions of yours.
Feel free to explain the effects of reducing the wage levels of German and US workers to those of the GDR workforce and/or then transferring all production of both tooling and product to GDR to take advantage of the lower wage costs within that scenario.
Carryfast:
James the cat:
From Harunito Shiomi, "Fordism transformed:the development of production methods in the automobile industry (lets see what ââ â â â â â â â â he has to say about Fordism not existing with the GDR. And trade restrictions within the GDR):-
"The GDR did try to utilize the advantages of mass production, where the possibilities of standardization and the adoption of large scale production could be used extensively. This was the case for instance, in ship building and later in the serial style construction of apartment blocks. In principle the GDRâs automobile industry was also organized on Fordist linesâŚ(oh dear on the first point CF )
âŚThe âTrabantâ, a 500cc two cylinder two-stoke car, began production at the end of 1957âŚ
âŚwith annual production runs of 100,000 and 50,000 cars, respectively (Waryburg -sic) there was no shortage of incentive for the adoption of Ford methods of mass production. Nor can the relevance of another Ford paradigm, the limited availability of a qualified workforce, be denied for East Germany in the 1950s,âŚ
âŚPrecisely the effort to practice âFordism in one countryâ (see Vobkamp and Wittke 1990) makes clear that the innovative power of the new production methods, as instanced above all in the car industry in West Germany, did not lie primarily in the utilization of âeconomics of scaleâ. Rather, the deepening integration into the world market in the 1950s offered the precondition for a high degree of division of labour, which bought considerable cost advantages, eased the transfer of technologies across borders, and hastened the adoption of innovations under pressure of competition. In contrast, the GDR had to develop and produce special machines and other high-tech inputs on her own, whereas the West German automobile industry was able to import such sophisticated devices from the USAâŚ"
Oh dear, oh deary me. Not looking good for those trade sanctions of yours.
Feel free to explain the effects of reducing the wage levels of German and US workers to those of the GDR workforce and/or then transferring all production of both tooling and product to GDR to take advantage of the lower wage costs within that scenario.
âFeel freeâ to completely misunderstand the quoted text and then ask a question in rebuke to something I havenât proposed . Itâs hard to even start having an adult intelligent discussion with you when I say the word black and you insist I said white . We have this with 5 year olds. Basic comprehension
You know what, to be honest âfeel freeâ to read the book yourself, e mail the author and take it up with him. Donât forget to leave the âDâ hat behind after you leave school
Carryfast:
James the cat:
Carryfast:
Firstly since when was the GDR or USSR run along Fordist Capitalist lines.
Okedok (whispers- by the way, countries arenât ârunâ according to Fordist lines, thatâs a model of production operating within a given country, but you knew that right? Iâll keep that blunder a secret donât worry.)
You seem to be confusing the idea of âmass productionâ with the Fordist closed loop âeconomic systemâ that allows the workforce to earn the disposable incomes required to buy the products being made by mass production.In doing so then adding to the demand for those products and thereby the demand for labour thereby increasing wage rates even more etc etc etc.That is the difference between the Capitalist Fordist system v the Communist one.
The Communist version of âFordist production methodsâ,under a âSocialist economic systemâ,being all about the mimimising of wage rates on a crusade against the decadance and economic self reliance which it sees as a threat to the dependency culture that justifies the existence of the socialist system.The result,unlike 1960âs America,being a load of zb cheap products which the downtrodden exploited workforce canât afford to buy at any price.While they get the bus,tram or train back to their state provided allocated zb flat.At least until the whole zb system collapses.
In this case weâve got the even worse situation of the combination of a Socialist type wage regime within the contradiction of a so called âCapitalistâ type cost of living structure.Which can obviously be solved only by going for the full on Socialist idea of state provided/controlled living standards to go with the Commy incomes regime.
In which case,as I said,the OPâs idea,of calling for less wages to maintain his state housing benefits provision and eligibility,fits in perfectly with the thoughts of zb Mao and Stalin.
Erm, I hate to break it to you but I am not confusing it at all. Read a bit more and pay attention. You seem to be struggling with recognising your trade embargoes will hardly do anything but encourage a closed loop system. Read the text again. And try to keep up 007
James the cat:
Erm, I hate to break it to you but I am not confusing it at all. Read a bit more and pay attention. You seem to be struggling with recognising your trade embargoes will hardly do anything but encourage a closed loop system. Read the text again. And try to keep up 007
Feel free to explain how you will be able to maintain a ( Capitalist ) Fordist closed loop economic system.If/when someone like Reagan comes along and decides to ship the work out to a Communist economy to take âadvantageâ of the Communist type low wage regime.Or for that matter when Heath decides to give the work to the Germans to avoid âanother European warâ.
Carryfast:
James the cat:
From Harunito Shiomi, "Fordism transformed:the development of production methods in the automobile industry (lets see what ââ â â â â â â â â he has to say about Fordism not existing with the GDR. And trade restrictions within the GDR):-
"The GDR did try to utilize the advantages of mass production, where the possibilities of standardization and the adoption of large scale production could be used extensively. This was the case for instance, in ship building and later in the serial style construction of apartment blocks. In principle the GDRâs automobile industry was also organized on Fordist linesâŚ(oh dear on the first point CF )
âŚThe âTrabantâ, a 500cc two cylinder two-stoke car, began production at the end of 1957âŚ
âŚwith annual production runs of 100,000 and 50,000 cars, respectively (Waryburg -sic) there was no shortage of incentive for the adoption of Ford methods of mass production. Nor can the relevance of another Ford paradigm, the limited availability of a qualified workforce, be denied for East Germany in the 1950s,âŚ
âŚPrecisely the effort to practice âFordism in one countryâ (see Vobkamp and Wittke 1990) makes clear that the innovative power of the new production methods, as instanced above all in the car industry in West Germany, did not lie primarily in the utilization of âeconomics of scaleâ. Rather, the deepening integration into the world market in the 1950s offered the precondition for a high degree of division of labour, which bought considerable cost advantages, eased the transfer of technologies across borders, and hastened the adoption of innovations under pressure of competition. In contrast, the GDR had to develop and produce special machines and other high-tech inputs on her own, whereas the West German automobile industry was able to import such sophisticated devices from the USAâŚ"
Oh dear, oh deary me. Not looking good for those trade sanctions of yours.
Feel free to explain the effects of reducing the wage levels of German and US workers to those of the GDR workforce and/or then transferring all production of both tooling and product to GDR to take advantage of the lower wage costs within that scenario.
You seem to be struggling. Allow me to help. The text cites just the opposite. West Germany made full used of trade, advocacy and enquiry of foreign products and knowldege to further their product and remain competitive in an open trading situation. Competition in the commercial sphere drives development and quality. If the owner of a company could sell you a cardboard kettle that lasts for 29 mushy cups, he would: given that heâs the only one selling cardboard kettles in the country. Fat and lazy, churning out crap, safe in the knowledge he pays his workers enough to buy the dross they produce by their own hands, safe in the knowledge that competition does not harry his doorstep.
The GDR was self restricted. The western product bloomed and wages increased from marching revenues in an exponential period. Ah, but the inevitable?! People traded. Cross border sharing of expertise and goods was the prime engine in producing quality goods. The GDR? Trade sanctions - low wages. The cardboard 29 cup kettle.
Of course, it was never going to be sustainable to have this open seeking nature in a commercial world whilst being able to hold onto the ideals of the Fordist principle. That was always going to change. Thatâs the way it goes. The end result? The wages also went down.
So. Will trade embargoes transport the UK back to a slice of history of enlightenment? Of a time when foreign completion was sparce? No it wonât. History says otherwise. Like the ringing of the dead I have to continuously state this as is it were an epitaph, but I am not pillaring the way of the East or of the GDR. I am citing instances of history that show your ideas to be a falsehood and without capable of holding water in what you wish to achieve.
New drinking game.
Every time someone says âfeel freeâ we all take a drink 
Carryfast:
James the cat:
Erm, I hate to break it to you but I am not confusing it at all. Read a bit more and pay attention. You seem to be struggling with recognising your trade embargoes will hardly do anything but encourage a closed loop system. Read the text again. And try to keep up 007
Feel free to explain how you will be able to maintain a ( Capitalist ) Fordist closed loop economic system.If/when someone like Reagan comes along and decides to ship the work out to a Communist economy to take âadvantageâ of the Communist type low wage regime.Or for that matter when Heath decides to give the work to the Germans to avoid âanother European warâ.
I would think, wouldnât you; that would be a question you should be asking yourself given what youâre proposing would lead to a closed loop system
Albeit a stifled system, strangled by restrictions that are the nemesis of development within industry.
Just as an aside. How do you propose to kick start enterprise. What, write to Richard Branson and ask of he fancies dipping into computers? Maybe ask Dyson if he can come up with a car industry? Is this before of after you slap trade embargoes onto the open market?
The-Snowman:
New drinking game.
Every time someone says âfeel freeâ we all take a drink
I wonât be in work tomorrow if we play that!
James the cat:
You seem to be struggling. Allow me to help. The text cites just the opposite. West Germany made full used of trade, advocacy and enquiry of foreign products and knowldege to further their product and remain competitive in an open trading situation. Competition in the commercial sphere drives development and quality. If the owner of a company could sell you a cardboard kettle that lasts for 29 mushy cups, he would: given that heâs the only one selling cardboard kettles in the country. Fat and lazy, churning out crap, safe in the knowledge he pays his workers enough to buy the dross they produce by their own hands, safe in the knowledge that competition does not harry his doorstep.
The GDR was self restricted. The western product bloomed and wages increased from marching revenues in an exponential period. Ah, but the inevitable?! People traded. Cross border sharing of expertise and goods was the prime engine in producing quality goods. The GDR? Trade sanctions - low wages. The cardboard 29 cup kettle.
Of course, it was never going to be sustainable to have this open seeking nature in a commercial world whilst being able to hold onto the ideals of the Fordist principle. That was always going to change. Thatâs the way it goes. The end result? The wages also went down.
So. Will trade embargoes transport the UK back to a slice of history of enlightenment? Of a time when foreign completion was sparce? No it wonât. History says otherwise. Like the ringing of the dead I have to continuously state this as is it were an epitaph, but I am not pillaring the way of the East or of the GDR. I am citing instances of history that show your ideas to be a falsehood and without capable of holding water in what you wish to achieve.
Germany didnât get where it is by not applying trade barriers wether openly or covert.Covert in this case being the realisation by ze Germans that if they didnât buy their own products,thereby maintaining that Fordist closed loop system,theyâd end up like Greece.
The âtextâ doesnât seem to answer the question as to how youâll maintain wages and living standards in a modern advanced developed industrialised Capitalist economy.If you deindustrialise it by sending the work to be done by cheap labour at Communist type wage levels.Thereby breaking that domestic Capitalist Fordist closed loop.
Carryfast:
James the cat:
You seem to be struggling. Allow me to help. The text cites just the opposite. West Germany made full used of trade, advocacy and enquiry of foreign products and knowldege to further their product and remain competitive in an open trading situation. Competition in the commercial sphere drives development and quality. If the owner of a company could sell you a cardboard kettle that lasts for 29 mushy cups, he would: given that heâs the only one selling cardboard kettles in the country. Fat and lazy, churning out crap, safe in the knowledge he pays his workers enough to buy the dross they produce by their own hands, safe in the knowledge that competition does not harry his doorstep.
The GDR was self restricted. The western product bloomed and wages increased from marching revenues in an exponential period. Ah, but the inevitable?! People traded. Cross border sharing of expertise and goods was the prime engine in producing quality goods. The GDR? Trade sanctions - low wages. The cardboard 29 cup kettle.
Of course, it was never going to be sustainable to have this open seeking nature in a commercial world whilst being able to hold onto the ideals of the Fordist principle. That was always going to change. Thatâs the way it goes. The end result? The wages also went down.
So. Will trade embargoes transport the UK back to a slice of history of enlightenment? Of a time when foreign completion was sparce? No it wonât. History says otherwise. Like the ringing of the dead I have to continuously state this as is it were an epitaph, but I am not pillaring the way of the East or of the GDR. I am citing instances of history that show your ideas to be a falsehood and without capable of holding water in what you wish to achieve.
Germany didnât get where it is by not applying trade barriers wether openly or covert.Covert in this case being the realisation by ze Germans that if they didnât buy their own products,thereby maintaining that Fordist closed loop system,theyâd end up like Greece.
The âtextâ doesnât seem to answer the question as to how youâll maintain wages and living standards in a modern advanced developed industrialised Capitalist economy.If you deindustrialise it by sending the work to be done by cheap labour at Communist type wage levels.Thereby breaking that domestic Capitalist Fordist closed loop.
Exactly, exactly 
. The text doesnât answer this question. Itâs a microscopic view of history as it happened. It merely cites the pitfalls and merits of many a game played within commercial aspiration of mass production within recent world market history. All I am doing is shining a critical light onto your proposals. That your particular idea falls short by a rather long chalk if history can provide anything other than a figurative âkick in the ballsâ as a reminder. Whatever West Germany may or may not have covertly attempted has not succeeded into the utopian restoration of the early 1900s Fordist ideology you seek.
James the cat:
Carryfast:
James the cat:
Erm, I hate to break it to you but I am not confusing it at all. Read a bit more and pay attention. You seem to be struggling with recognising your trade embargoes will hardly do anything but encourage a closed loop system. Read the text again. And try to keep up 007
Feel free to explain how you will be able to maintain a ( Capitalist ) Fordist closed loop economic system.If/when someone like Reagan comes along and decides to ship the work out to a Communist economy to take âadvantageâ of the Communist type low wage regime.Or for that matter when Heath decides to give the work to the Germans to avoid âanother European warâ.
I would think, wouldnât you; that would be a question you should be asking yourself given what youâre proposing would lead to a closed loop system
Albeit a stifled system, strangled by restrictions that are the nemesis of development within industry.
Just as an aside. How do you propose to kick start enterprise. What, write to Richard Branson and ask of he fancies dipping into computers? Maybe ask Dyson if he can come up with a car industry? Is this before of after you slap trade embargoes onto the open market?
What industry under your system itâs mostly all gone to places like China etc to take advantage of the cheaper labour costs available under the Socialist economic system.
As for kick starting âenterpriseâ assuming the aim is for that âenterpriseâ,to create a situation,of wage levels which allow for sufficient incomes to cover housing costs etc,without state provided wage subsidies in whatever form,with enough left over to keep the economy moving.Then trade barriers against foreign competition,using cheap labour that doesnât,will obviously be an essential requirement.
James the cat:
Exactly, exactly . The text doesnât answer this question. Itâs a microscopic view of history as it happened. It merely cites the pitfalls and merits of many a game played within commercial aspiration of mass production within recent world market history. All I am doing is shining a critical light onto your proposals. That your particular idea falls short by a rather long chalk if history can provide anything other than a figurative âkick in the ballsâ as a reminder. Whatever West Germany may or may not have covertly attempted has not succeeded into the utopian restoration of the early 1900s Fordist ideology you seek.
Exactly the text doesnât answer that essential question.In which case it doesnât support any of your arguments against the imposition of trade barriers.
On that note Iâm actually referring to the ârestorationâ of the US Capitalist Fordist economic model of the 1960âs/early70âs not the early 20th Century.Although not surprisingly that is the inconvenient truth against all of your arguments.
Carryfast:
James the cat:
Carryfast:
James the cat:
Erm, I hate to break it to you but I am not confusing it at all. Read a bit more and pay attention. You seem to be struggling with recognising your trade embargoes will hardly do anything but encourage a closed loop system. Read the text again. And try to keep up 007
Feel free to explain how you will be able to maintain a ( Capitalist ) Fordist closed loop economic system.If/when someone like Reagan comes along and decides to ship the work out to a Communist economy to take âadvantageâ of the Communist type low wage regime.Or for that matter when Heath decides to give the work to the Germans to avoid âanother European warâ.
I would think, wouldnât you; that would be a question you should be asking yourself given what youâre proposing would lead to a closed loop system
Albeit a stifled system, strangled by restrictions that are the nemesis of development within industry.
Just as an aside. How do you propose to kick start enterprise. What, write to Richard Branson and ask of he fancies dipping into computers? Maybe ask Dyson if he can come up with a car industry? Is this before of after you slap trade embargoes onto the open market?
What industry under your system itâs mostly all gone to places like China etc to take advantage of the cheaper labour costs available under the Socialist economic system.
As for kick starting âenterpriseâ assuming the aim is for that âenterpriseâ,to create a situation,of wage levels which allow for sufficient incomes to cover housing costs etc,without state provided wage subsidies in whatever form,with enough left over to keep the economy moving.Then trade barriers against foreign competition,using cheap labour that doesnât,will obviously be an essential requirement.
Oh youâre not getting away with this one that easilyâŚ
Whatâs my system?
And show me, exactly, the paragraph where I have personally rallied a diametrically opposed system to Fordist Capitalism
And show me a paragraph that wasnât written in anything other than the context to point out your methods have extreme flaws in achieving what I would wish to be be.
Carryfast:
Exactly the text doesnât answer that essential question.In which case it doesnât support any of your arguments against the imposition of trade barriers.
.
My goodness. The text is not answering a question. This is not apologetics. The text is providing an account of history as it happened and within that test cites an example of the difference between open trading and closed trading and the results (just read the whole book). If you canât see that, even from the text presented. Well, we have a basic comprehension problem again.
Unless youâre a particularly steely chap who can peel 12 oranges in his pocket Iâd say thereâs neâer but you and a â â â paper seperating your ideas from repeating history. Well, not a â â â paper, you and 1000,000 tonnes of granite as youâre on trucknet and letâs face it, youâre not going to to be the next pm.
Carryfast:
James the cat:
Exactly, exactly . The text doesnât answer this question. Itâs a microscopic view of history as it happened. It merely cites the pitfalls and merits of many a game played within commercial aspiration of mass production within recent world market history. All I am doing is shining a critical light onto your proposals. That your particular idea falls short by a rather long chalk if history can provide anything other than a figurative âkick in the ballsâ as a reminder. Whatever West Germany may or may not have covertly attempted has not succeeded into the utopian restoration of the early 1900s Fordist ideology you seek.
Exactly the text doesnât answer that essential question.In which case it doesnât support any of your arguments against the imposition of trade barriers.
On that note Iâm actually referring to the ârestorationâ of the US Capitalist Fordist economic model of the 1960âs/early70âs not the early 20th Century.Although not surprisingly that is the inconvenient truth against all of your arguments.
Iâm sorry, but itâs actually quite convenient. The period you idealise took place, not during a moment of stasis, interrupted by a sudden reversible event. Rather the whole kit and caboodle was on an exponential, inevitable path.
Your proposal to use trade sanctions to reinstate this periods is woeful in its lacking of understanding the catalysts behind such a period and why a simplistic attempt at trade embargoes will not bring it back.
Your glossed over ideas also exhibit a hollow recognition of the social science behind the economics that fuelled this period, dismissing the minutiae of detail surrounding the social and trading situation of the world during the 1960s.
There is no evidence from you that shows an appreciation of why the downfall happened. No viable construct of argument, no mechanics; of how you could possibly attempt to bring back the balance of trading environment that existed in the 1960s world, all within the 2015 UK using trade sanctions gold fish bowl, in an effort to replicate a burgeoning capitalist 1960s US system, flexing itâs mighty muscles on the cups of a wave of mighty world consumerism.
The social mood of the time, post war relief. A new beginning. Adoption for the first time of fast moving consumer goods without a saturated market. A closed loop nationalised pride. The trading conditions of the world at that time. The list goes on.
Radar19:
The-Snowman:
New drinking game.
Every time someone says âfeel freeâ we all take a drink
I wonât be in work tomorrow if we play that!
What day is it nowâ â ? 
