Anyone else who hated being at CH ?

[michael scuffil]

As far as hating Harrow, Michael, many eminent figures have hated their public schools but have not moved to eliminate them.

True, but that was not my point. In the circumstances, Churchill personally might well have acquiesced in their elimination. But governments do sometimes have to listen to their core supporters.

On the whole matter of state interference, read Seaman's 'The Last Days in London'. I was flabbergasted at what the 'state' thought it could do with CH. A bit like Mrs Thatcher claiming that the TSB belonged to no one and was up for grabs (in that case, to be privatized rather than nationalized).

[rockfreak]

Apparently the Duke of Wellington hated Eton (including the playing fields where the Battle of Waterloo was supposedly won) but never moved to close it down when in office later.

I very much doubt that it would ever have crossed the Duke's mind that he could or should (get Parliament to) close down Eton, whatever his beef with it, or any other school. The very idea would have struck him as tyrannical and preposterous. By the mid-Victorian, the idea of the State as the solution had began to take hold in British political life, and as we can see with what is attributed to Butler, by 1944 after 5 years of State regimentation of life during the War, the dictum of Mussolini had been adopted without attribution into the political sphere, pretty much where it remains today, even before Mussolini was strung up from a garage.
"Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello St


Now come on Ed. Trying to equate Italian fascism with post war European social democracy is a ridiculous idea. State regimentation was necessary during the war as indeed was the rationing that followed it for five years. Otherwise the nobs would have snaffled all the scarce resources. And by the way, Churchill's Tory party continued with rationing for two years after they came back to power in 1951. I'm not sure what you mean by the idea of state regimentation in the Victorian period. This period is marked by a lack of state intervention. In the richest empire the world had known people in our own cities were living in hovels, filth and disease while mine owners, factory owners and mill owners got richer. It's in the 20th century under Lloyd George that we see the first throws in a system of social security and pensions, followed after WW2 by the ideas of Beveridge, Attlee and Nye Bevan. As far as state intervention goes, the "mixed economies" of western Europe with the state taking a hand where thought necessary but leaving the private sector free (within sensible constraints) in the purely commercial sector has been unprecedently successful in historical terms.

[rockfreak]

Just read the whole thread and realised that I haven't commented.

In short there were times I hated being at CH and felt very alone but equally there were times I loved it too.

Bit like life generally really I feel so not peculiar to CH.

As for Rockfreak's comments I think if you scratched the surface even he might admit in a moment of reflection that he gets carried along in the slipstream of his own rhetoric sometimes. The price of being 'handy' with a pen given that he apparently earned his living through journalism.

CH, as other walks of life, has had and doubtless still has its share of bad eggs and prats or do I mean ...'smug and self-satisfied pupils?' That doesn't mean you 'throw the baby out with the bath water' because of the transgressions of a minority.

Mid A 15: Robust opinions or not, I never get carried away on my own slipstream - whether in my music journalism (which was often hard hitting) nor in my posts on this site. I always say exactly what I believe (although on a couple of occasions on this site I've taken a step back, had a few thoughts and apologised when I thought someone had been uneccessarily hurt). But I'm not trying to grandstand. I truly believe that the boarding school system (including CH) is a contributory factor to the fractured nature of our unhappy country, which lags well behind other countries in developed Europe in terms of social cohesion. I believe that it's you guys who are trying to argue the unarguable.

[Pe.A]

Are you just laying on the stereotypes and trying to get rise out of people, and in effect acting like a mischievous public schoolboy...?

We know it can't be sarcasm, it doesn't do sarcasm:

...sarcasm is one of the stocks in trade people often pick up at boarding school. For many it's a substitute for intelligence.

I thought sarcasm was described as the highest form of intelligence and lowest form of wit...

[Pe.A]

Just read the whole thread and realised that I haven't commented.

In short there were times I hated being at CH and felt very alone but equally there were times I loved it too.

Bit like life generally really I feel so not peculiar to CH.

As for Rockfreak's comments I think if you scratched the surface even he might admit in a moment of reflection that he gets carried along in the slipstream of his own rhetoric sometimes. The price of being 'handy' with a pen given that he apparently earned his living through journalism.

CH, as other walks of life, has had and doubtless still has its share of bad eggs and prats or do I mean ...'smug and self-satisfied pupils?' That doesn't mean you 'throw the baby out with the bath water' because of the transgressions of a minority.

Mid A 15: Robust opinions or not, I never get carried away on my own slipstream - whether in my music journalism (which was often hard hitting) nor in my posts on this site. I always say exactly what I believe (although on a couple of occasions on this site I've taken a step back, had a few thoughts and apologised when I thought someone had been uneccessarily hurt). But I'm not trying to grandstand. I truly believe that the boarding school system (including CH) is a contributory factor to the fractured nature of our unhappy country, which lags well behind other countries in developed Europe in terms of social cohesion. I believe that it's you guys who are trying to argue the unarguable.

Rockfreak - could you expand on the social cohesion bit, pls....?

[sejintenej]

with the state taking a hand where thought necessary but leaving the private sector free (within sensible constraints) in the purely commercial sector has been unprecedently successful in historical terms.

Be careful, David. OK so my background is French but I do klnow just a bit about Germany where there was a silent rescue of Deutsche Bank and Volkswagen. As for the shenanigans when a small bank went bust and the Bundesbank got involved - that beats the secondary banking crisis into a cocked hat.

OK, so you want to do busines; you must first do a €3000 course in a language you don't speak or understand, you then must do a two year financial plan and pay tax on the first year's profits in advance (a concept which runs throughout the life of the firm / sole trader / whatever), then you must put a deposit down towards social costs and so it goes on. Basically "social costs / taxes" alone are 55 to 60% of invoices whether they are paid or not. Out of the balance you must buy raw materials, equipment (premises) things like compulsory membership of the chanber of commerce and their "course" costs, wages, fuel, legal costs .......... AND YOU CALL THESE "SENSIBLE" RESTRAINTS????

By contrast, in the UK:
my wife is a registered "sole trader" and to set up the "cost" was the ink to sign a simple form. OK so she is not involved on food etc. which have extra costs. Of course she has to pay tax on profits.
I helped set up a registered company in the UK; the total registration costs including legal and accounting setup were £100. Thre were no licencing or other such costs necessary and first year turnover was over £3,000,000 with minimal overheads. It still exists, in the first 30 years every quarter it made a profit greater than the previous quarter........ I don't know about recent years.
Of course there is a risk involved with any company or sole trader but at least the UK allows people to try.

OTOH the big companies (as in France) are destroying the high streets. My local hardware store has been forced to close and it's huge replacement con't be f***ing bothered to stock basic replacements***. Given the future projections I forsee a crisis as people cannot get to out-of-town stores and high street shps have been forced to close

Labour? what the f*** do they do? Will they immediately break up Tesco, Sainmsbury's, B & Q into £1000 com[panies (like Bell into miniBells) and FORCE them to close every out-of-town store and open in the high streets and stock everything any customer requests or will they simply tax and pay oolos (ask Mr Herbert about oolos) to write huge immaculate and meaningless theses and do nothing?????

*** I bought a woodworking tool from them (their own brand) and they have never sold the necessary parts to properly use it. They took over our local French equivalent and destroyed that as well.

[MrEd]

Now come on Ed. Trying to equate Italian fascism with post war European social democracy is a ridiculous idea. State regimentation was necessary during the war as indeed was the rationing that followed it for five years. Otherwise the nobs would have snaffled all the scarce resources. And by the way, Churchill's Tory party continued with rationing for two years after they came back to power in 1951. I'm not sure what you mean by the idea of state regimentation in the Victorian period. This period is marked by a lack of state intervention.

I did not equate fascism with anything, so much as point out that the foundation of it all is the use of State power, Mussolini was a life-long socialist, he just had a different branding strategy. His belief in the predominance of the State is not questioned, and social democrats do not disagree with the principle, just some of the methods and the rhetoric.

The rationing that followed WW2 was not necessary, it was a choice, the U-boats had been accounted for pretty much by June 1945. In post-WW2 Western Germany, Ludwig Erhard scrapped many of the price controls, imposed by the Allies, in 1948, and the German Wirtschaftswunder flowed on. Miserable Socialists relished rationing. Only the other day, an Edwardian I know who went to Europe c. 1949 recounted how she and her school friends were astonished by the abundance of food and goods in The Netherlands, which in 1944 had literally had starvation (see Operation Manna). What you fail to appreciate is that with price controls (or rationing) comes economic dislocation and shortages, and lifting price controls allows the underlying reality to be adapted to, and things get better.

Churchill continued rationing, yes he did. So what? That's a fact, not an argument for it. Churchill himself warned that a large welfare state would require some form of Gestapo, rather heated rhetoric, but in this century we have councils checking wheely-bins and fining people for not sorting rubbish, and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers abuses, somewhat checked now, with councils snooping on dog walkers, people feeding pigeons and so on. You might not be aware that old Benito had an honorary knighthood in the 1920s from the British government, so highly thought of was he (like Mugabe, and other reprobates, e.g. Ceausescu) and it was only taken off him in 1940 when he got Italy into the war. Fascism was cool for a while with the socialists, and the fundamental attitude still is, if not the label.

As for the Victorian era, it's quite clear that you are not sure what I mean, it's because you are ignorant of the facts. The growth of the state got underway just before Victoria came to the throne, and by 1888 the apparatus of local government was being set up. Education Authorities came in (in England and Wales) in 1870. Any notion that the Victorian era was one of laissez-faire would be unfounded. Was life in Victorian England grim? Generally, yes, for all but a few, but it was getting better.

[bakunin]

That's historically largely wrong about the relation between fascists and socialists and between socialists and the state, but also off topic so I won't go into the details. Also free markets for food in times of scarcity just lead to starvation, speculation and hoarding. The free market is not a rational mechanism for allocating resources for the benefit of humanity or the planet.

[MrEd]

The free market is not a rational mechanism for allocating resources for the benefit of humanity or the planet.

Ah. the appeal to 'reason', who was it who dedicated the former Temple of Reason that recently burnt down in Paris?

If you try to hand out food by reason, you end up with mass starvation, like under socialism in The Ukraine, Kazhakstan, Ethiopia and other places. I suppose that would bother you, would it?

You cannot plan an economy without destroying the very nature of it, Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises pointed this out by 1922. You either have prices, or randomness and chaos. There's nothing else to be said.

[wurzel]

I think it is a little less Black and White - if you want to get into the mechanics of it then you need to compare the elasticity of demand and the elasticity of supply - during the war supply could not be increased and was less than the free market demand by so much that free market supply and demand would have led to very high prices which meant those with resources/saving could by what they "wanted" leaving those without those resources unable to purchase the minimum "needed". Rationing ensured those with resources were restricted in their purchases and the prices controlled such that those without the resources still received the minimum amount to be able to continue being economically active and of use to the economy - if the grander scheme of things it was a more efficient allocation of resources. Otherwise the utility of those people who would otherwise of starved was not priced into the sale cost of the food

[J.R.]

I fear we are wandering way off topic.

[bakunin]

You cannot plan an economy without destroying the very nature of it, Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises pointed this out by 1922. You either have prices, or randomness and chaos. There's nothing else to be said.

This is just Thatcherite dogma. The famines you mention are a result of civil war or deliberate genocide policies in countries with market economies. Mises' economic calculation argument falls apart at the slightest inspection. Economists don't understand either mathematics or scientific models anyway. It's easy to compute the optimal allocation of billions of resources with modern technology.

The free market is just an out of control casino that is destroying the planet.

[rockfreak]

Yes, it's Von Mises and the other "Austrian" economists such as Hayek, whose free market ideas were taken up by Thatcher and Reagan in 1980, and caused in both our countries: the worst recessions and unemployment since the '30s, chronically worsening balance of payments positions, worsening inequality, less social mobility, and, interestingly, huge government deficits - in spite of both these premiers spouting on about sound money.
On Mr Ed's comment about things getting better for the workers in the 19th century, I suspect that much of such improvement as happened through Factory Acts and Children's Acts came through pressure from concerned aristos, nonconformist ministers, agitation from radicals and labour movements, and from the novels of Charles Dickens. It was still so excruciatingly slow that when the first world war broke out the recruiting sergeants were apparently aghast at the poor physical standard of the working men that were coming forward.

By the way, government intervention was taken up by a Tory party just before the second war, and interestingly enough by the much maligned Neville Chamberlain. The government decided that we were much too reliant on heavy industry and so decided to plough money into encouraging light industry, chemicals and other fields. This is the era when buildings like the art deco Hoover factory started springing up along the arterial roads out of our cities, as indeed did rather nicely built set-back, semi-detached houses to encourage the workers and to create "clusters" of activity out of the city centres. I suppose that today's Tory party would call this Bennism or cherry picking.

[MrEd]

This is just Thatcherite dogma. The famines you mention are a result of civil war or deliberate genocide policies in countries with market economies. Mises' economic calculation argument falls apart at the slightest inspection.

Funny you should say that von Mises' argument falls down. Khrushchev himself acknowledged it was right and said that if (when) the Soviets took over the World, they would leave one country as a market economy so that they would have prices to reckon by for their accursed, groaning slave empire. By the late 1980s, Trotskyites in the UK were still grappling with it, and came up with a basis of calculation using energy rather than prices, but it wasn't clear if when they said that they would use 'energy' as a (bastardised) substitute for 'labour', making the labour theory of value into an energy theory of value, if they would calculate on the least energy being used or the most energy being used in a process as the way to calculate 'value'.

You appear to accept that socialists have engaged in deliberate genocide, which is true, but even when they don't they still produce famine. Look at Venezuela. In the 1980s, you could buy Bolivars in bureaux de change in Portugal, as so many Portuguese worked there. Now, after some years of socialism, people are breaking into zoos to kill and eat the animals inside.

I can't quite see how von Mises, writing in 1922, can be 'Thatcherite' when she hadn't even been born then.

Economists don't understand either mathematics or scientific models anyway.

Now that really is a classic, von Mises (whose brother Richard was a mathematician), expressly rejected mathematical models in economics. He posited it as a science of human action, how humans react to scarcity essentially, his work is the very antithesis of mathematical economics. You might as well talk of Rutherford's currant buns.

I think I can stop there. There's nothing useful to be achieved by taking this any further.

[rockfreak]

To this very day, I am consumed by a passionate indifference.

Looking at your viewing profile Cleopatra I think we may have much in common (I too had a cat which I loved dearly). But that's the trouble with the *intensity of experience" which James Brooke-Smith mentions in his book on public schools - even the indifference is intense. You never quite shake the bl**dy place off. Otherwise we wouldn't be picking away on this site. No-one that goes to day school seems to have this problem (like my three daughters for instance). People go to school, learn, leave, and then go off into the outside world. The proverbial university of life. The public schools deliberately foster what I might call an air of grandeur in order to seduce those stupid enough to buy into the whole silly charade.