Vested Interest and Failure to Change

30/09/2011 4:22 pm

You might not have noticed we live in a capitalist society.  It is all about taking money from the poor and giving it to the rich...  You can moan as much as you like.  This is how the system work, and if you don't like it, tough luck mate.

30/09/2011 4:49 pm

He would probably think that the host of mergers and changes over the past 100 years have led to the organisation he gave rise to no longer following the same philosophy.

It does not detract from the fact that his legacy provided valuable housing, without cost to the State, and preserving the investment capital to continue to provide more.

It also does not detract from the fact that those with a vested interest in increasing property values and escalating rents did all in their power to frustrate his enterprise, just as they continue to do so today. Their befuddled apologists even trot out onto these pages to tell us not to reduce rents not reduce property prices, even in the knowledge that this means keeping people homeless and many more in unaffordable housing situations.

So Nonny, your aside does not detract from the case that Vested Interests remain the blockage to well overdue change.

As a footnote, the current surplus is anly around 1/3 of the original investment that has delivered thousands of homes over the years, so not quite the picture you wish to paint Nonny!

02/10/2011 8:21 pm

I've just been watching Countryfile, which visited a massive estate that had fallen into ruin over many years. As the private sector were incapable of repairing it the public sector stepped into to do so.

The multimillion pound project is being funded from the proceeds of a single grant from the local authority, established as a Trust which will carry out the repairs and ensure that the property remains in good condition for ever more.

If public funds can be used this way to keep a former Lord's Estate from crumbling into the earth then surely it can be used to build new Housing Estates for people to live in affordably.

As such a mechanism is not new, experimental, or dangerous, why on earth is it not being used?

03/10/2011 12:31 pm

So Chris, if what you are saying is we need shrewd, wealthy, willing and able business people to voluntarily put their own money into housing schemes, which would, if followed according to their direction, have enduring success, then I agree!

Only don't you normally hate and wish to discriminate against such people?

03/10/2011 11:21 pm

No Chris, I value constructive argument and I'm glad you've come to the view that business people are human beings too - and often offer much value to others.

I do wonder what you mean by:

"Only a sincere and committed government can break through this conspiracy of society and the socialites and return effective social solutions through the production of social housing in such numbers as to blow all opposition and inequality away, once and for all."

What conspiracy do you believe in Chris?

Whose money will pay for production of social housing "...in such numbers as to blow all opposition and inequality away, once and for all". Yours? Other peoples? Do you plan on asking them first? You should realise the economy is faltering and the supply of credit a mere drip - before making a plea for revolution. What you wish for will hurt more people than it helps.  

07/10/2011 5:58 pm

Chris - I'm pleased you have learned from the post series about totalitarianism and seemingly no longer tar one group of people with the same brush.

If you are referring to the part which states the reason relatively few homes were built "lay in the strategies of the rich and powerful, who used every resource available to contain “the potentially disruptive features of the trust,” and these strageties involved “the courts, the Attorney General, and central and local government.”" as your conspiracy - what law were the rich and powerful conspiring to break?

Clearly, despite being 'rich and powerful', these mysterious people only had limited success as "Nonetheless, the Trust's funds, determination, and lawyers managed to build handsome, successful housing that has lasted to the present day in London and other parts of the U. K."

A dispute is not a conspiracy. Your dream for a Government to blow away all disputes to shape the world as you would have it, regardless of the views of those who affected, is what concerns me. Given your track record of prejudice against the 'rich and powerful' I suspect you wouldn't give a toss if their rights were violated, but this is not the way you are choosing to package it.

08/10/2011 9:56 pm

"These were people using their power and influence to enforce their will and protect their interest" - Chris every person tends to use what power they have and what influence they have to advance what they want to see happen. It is called human nature - which you profess to understand better than anyone else.

Labelling those with more to lose, and who have obtained positions in society where people value and care about their view points, and then demonising them for those reasons just demonstrates your own prejudices and bitterness. 

I do not reject any solution to the housing shortage which is proposed by individuals who are both willing and able to make it happen. It just struck me that not so long ago, you were saying capitalists and industrialists were expendable people. The truth is, for things to get better you need effective people. Also people who are rich and powerful. People like William Richard Sutton?

09/10/2011 1:14 am

Well I'm loathe to make this get any more personal than you seem intent on making it but...

31st August. J: "Have you ever thought what would happen if the motor of the world stopped Chris? Casting aside the people you hate so much will achieve precisely that."
1st September C: "I have considered that Jono - and wouldn't it be glorious if it occurred..."

Chris - I think I was quite explicit. I do not reject any solution to the housing shortage which is proposed by individuals who are both willing and able to make it happen. A trust could be such a solution.

Just to clarify - people who work together voluntarily to achieve common goals is not what I consider to be collectivism - but is the way I see people coming together cooperatively to make things happen. Consider that before presenting my philosophy as a form of self alienation.

09/10/2011 2:53 pm

F451 - not redefine, clarify. My position is unchanged.

We are where we are for many reasons. I agree with Rand that altruism as she defined it is evil. I agree with her furthermore that altruism has throughout history and still now to blame for the problems we see around us.

Give me evidence to the contrary - not just benign rhetoric.

"How far back do you intend to take us so that we can justify only doing what makes us happy, makes us feel good, is in our own best interest."

As far back as you like. Though you are missing a key word - rational. Being truly happy requires that what you are feeling is meaningful - not just a fleeting feeling from acting on whim, or some other arbitrary basis that will not make a lasting impression. What makes us feel good is our personal obtainment of our highest values, without taking advantage of others to do so - what offence does that cause you? And finally acting in your own rational self-interest - what does it say about you if you don't? How much value or regard do you have for yourself if you go through life letting other people dictate your course, and to use you for something that is not, by definition, something you would choose for yourself?

Kant was wrong F451.

10/10/2011 9:35 am

This thread was to look at the advantages of Trust funding and to explore the inertia to change inflicted by the established interests.
However, Jono appears to be determined to use every opportunity to advance his call to objectivism, where individuals act according to their own self chosen interests, or as makes them happy to put it another way. This is opposed to collectivism, which is seen as the cause of our troubles, and against altruism which is declared 'evil'.
What is ignored is the fact that Jono is right when he says that there are individuals who can be pointed to as examples of egoism over altruism, putting their own choice, their own interest, making them happy rather than self sacrifice or putting others first.
Stalin is an obvious example, unless Jono believes the dictator’s motives were altruistic. How about Hindley, Hinkley, or Sutcliffe who all lived lives to fulfil their own pleasure rather than consider the effect on others. And of course, the recent succession of MPs who were too busy feathering their own nests to run the country effectively would also fit the mould.
What great company you would keep Jono!
Of course, in Jono's world such excess could be legislated against, but then how would a society of self interested, self motivated, self advancing individuals ever be able to form a law that permitted one person's self determination to be made illegal whilst advancing the freedom of individuals to do as for their pleasure.
The philosophy put forwards is fine as a debating point, even as an ideal from which to mitigate overbearing State control, but it is hypothetical and unreal. As soon as people enter the delusion that it offers a life guidance for the human race it falls to its own contradictions, its inherent risks, the abject danger of offering individuals the opportunity to abuse power unfettered by either legal nor moral concerns. Those strongest will have the opportunity to monopolise power, just as happens post revolution when the new hope turns to new victimisations, purges, and controlling State. The potential outcome of what appears benign is to be avoided at all costs, and the acolytes of such systems confronted at every opportunity.
Meanwhile - the concept of Trust funding for housing development, management and provision of social rent appears sound and in need of exploration. At the same time, actions to rein in the vested interests and prohibit their self interest from being an obstacle to housing becoming affordable to all, not just the privileged, would be crucial. Some areas of life are too crucial to be left to the exploitation of the market - housing is one of these. Taking the profit motive, the self motive, out of housing is the way to ensure it remains affordable and available.