Yes, that's a good point but why are they sueing the British government, sorry, I mean British Banks, as well?
Yes, that's a good point but why are they sueing the British government, sorry, I mean British Banks, as well?
Atilla
Legendary member
- Messages
- 20,895
- Likes
- 4,067
I am not clueless. I also do not suck up to government. I am also not naive.
What you say is true, they were encouraged/directed by Clinton. However, that does not negate the fact they should disregard all risk and good practice.
Look it is simple. Tax payers have bailed out banks to the tune of trillions - who are owned by shareholders. (hey presto it's capitalism and it works great most of the time).
There is a collosal redistribution of wealth here.
Now we need to re-address that balance.
Do you appreciate the redistribution of wealth part? In capitalist system shareholders should bear that risk and purchase new issues to raise capital. Not have big G and tax payers.
new_trader
Legendary member
- Messages
- 6,770
- Likes
- 1,656
What specifically is it about everything I have posted since the start of this debate that you failed to comprehend?
1) I said from the beginning the what we have is phoney capitalism, you thinks it's the real deal.
2) I said, from the beginning, that the banks should not have been bailed out.
3) I said, from the beginning, that Government and Central Bank policies created, facilitated and continue to perpetuate the crisis.
What exactly do you NOT understand about my support for FREE MARKET CAPITALISM?
YOU, I repeat, it is YOU that thinks the Government needed to intervene. Astonishingly, you think the problems created can be fixed with your 'Rube Goldberg' solution of continued artificially low interest rates and inflation...simples...🙄
Atilla
Legendary member
- Messages
- 20,895
- Likes
- 4,067
I thought I did agree but pointed out that I prefered Gordon Brown's approach that if tax payers bail out banks then tax payers should own bank stock.
FREE MARKET capitalism is no solution imho.
Can you expand on your vision of how free market capitalism would handle;
defence
education
health
public services -
fireservices
police
prison
rubbish collection
planning
judicial system
banks
business
international relations
international trade
land & property rights
how about divorce
commercial law
elections
parliament
voting
citizens rights
unions
health and safety
etc etc...
you know the basics that we all take for granted...
addenda - the monarchy 🙂
new_trader
Legendary member
- Messages
- 6,770
- Likes
- 1,656
Capitalism isn't a solution, it is a system. Do more research on the subject yourself instead of closing your eyes and ears to everything you think is abhorrent to your moral sense.
Atilla
Legendary member
- Messages
- 20,895
- Likes
- 4,067
That's right, mate. You stick up for yourself or the politicians will be treading all over you and then what will we do? 👍
YouAreNotFree
Experienced member
- Messages
- 1,295
- Likes
- 225
The issue is not do we choose between Government or an extreme anarchical free market version of capitalism. Its the role that we believe government should play in our lives.
My own opinion is that I believe we need government for defence and law and order. That's it. Local government can provide whatever services the people want in that area. That way, prefer lower taxes and fewer services? Fine, move somewhere else.
I'll pick one of your bullet points. The reason we do not need government to impose health and safety standards, in the workplace for example, is because nobody is forced to work. If an employer was providing unsafe working conditions he would likely find it difficult to retain or hire employees and therefore he has an incentive to improve safety through market forces for his own personal benefit.
Last edited:
Believe it, or not, people are frightened of losing their jobs, to the extent of cutting corners to improve production. Here, in Spain, we have 21% unemployed. People will put up with umsafe working conditions to keep their jobs or the employer will find someone who will.
Atilla
Legendary member
- Messages
- 20,895
- Likes
- 4,067
I'm all for cutting down on Government, number of politicians and civil servants, Health and Social Services and the army... See rule number 2.
1. Raise taxes
2. Cut spending
3. i > r
Atilla
Legendary member
- Messages
- 20,895
- Likes
- 4,067
Atilla
Legendary member
- Messages
- 20,895
- Likes
- 4,067
On the ball analysis by Malcolm Fraser - former prime minister of Australia.
Opinion
America's self-inflicted decline
If the broad post-World War II prosperity that has endured for six decades comes to an end, both the United States and Europe will be responsible. With rare exceptions, politics has become a discredited profession throughout the West. Tomorrow is always treated as more important than next week, and next week prevails over next year, with no one seeking to secure the long-term future. Now the West is paying the price.
President Barack Obama’s instincts may be an exception here, but he is fighting powerful hidebound forces in the United States, as well as a demagogic populism, in the form of the Tea Party, that is far worse - and that might defeat him in 2012, seriously damaging the United States in the process.
The United States’ friends around the world watched with dismay the recent brawl over raising the federal government’s debt ceiling, and the US congress’ inability to come to anything like a balanced and forward-looking compromise. On the contrary, the outcome represents a significant victory for the Tea Party’s minions, whose purpose seems to be to reduce government obligations and expenditures to a bare minimum (some object even to having a central bank), and to maintain President George W Bush’s outrageous tax breaks for the wealthy.
The United States’ current fiscal problems are rooted in a long period of unfunded spending. Bush’s wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the manner in which he conducted the “global war on terror” made matters much worse, contributing to a totally unsustainable situation. Indeed, Obama inherited an almost impossible legacy.
In the weeks since the debt ceiling agreement, it has become increasingly clear that good government might be impossible in the US. The coming months of campaigning for the US presidency will be spent in petty brawling over what should be cut. The example of recent weeks gives us no cause for optimism that US legislators will rise above partisan politics and ask themselves what is best for America.
In these circumstances, it is not surprising that financial markets have returned to extreme volatility. The expenditure cuts mandated by the outcome of the debt-ceiling debate will reduce economic activity, thereby undermining growth and making debt reduction even more difficult. Providing further fiscal stimulus to boost economic growth would carry its own risks, owing to the debt ceiling and another, more ominous factor: the US is already overly indebted, and there are signs that major holders of US government securities are finally tired of being repaid in depreciated currency.
Most importantly, China’s call for the introduction of a new reserve currency stems from its frustration with the failure of major governments - whether in the US or Europe - to govern their economic affairs with realism and good sense. China recognises that the US is in great difficulty (indeed, it recognises this more clearly than the US itself), and that, given the poisonous political atmosphere prevailing in Washington, there will be no easy return to good government, economic stability, and strong growth.
US leadership in world affairs began to weaken with the unilateralism of Bush, and today’s economic problems are reinforcing this tendency. To reverse the United States’ decline, Obama needs bipartisan support for his (quite mainstream) policies, but so far the US congress has shown no stomach for a principled approach to its legislative duties.
If Germany’s half-hearted efforts to stabilise Europe somehow turn out to be successful, the US position will be further eroded, and central banks around the world will begin to regard the euro once again as a reliable alternative to the dollar as a reserve currency. The alternative, as China has suggested, would be to develop a new reserve currency.
These realities represent a power shift of a kind that we have not experienced in our lifetimes. China’s economic power over the US is now substantial, and will limit not only US influence in the financial markets, but also its capacity to use military power.
If this forces the United States back towards what the international-relations scholar Joseph Nye calls “soft power and multilateral diplomacy”, it may well be a good thing. But such approaches are anathema to the US Republican Party, and to its Tea Party faction in particular, and they might unnerve the many Asians who are nervous at China’s growing military might.
The counter-argument - that any sell-off or failure by China to continue to buy US government securities would hurt China as much as the US - is not valid. As each year passes, China’s markets expand worldwide, and its domestic market comes to represent a greater percentage of its own GDP. As a result, China will not need a strong dollar in the long term. Americans need to get their economic house in order before China loses its incentive to support the dollar.
On several occasions in the post-WWII period, the US has learned with great pain that there are limits to the effective use of military power. US objectives could not be achieved in Vietnam. The outcome in Iraq will not be determined until the last American troops have been withdrawn. In Afghanistan, where withdrawal dates have already been set, it is difficult to believe that a cohesive unified state can be established.
As the efficacy of military power is reduced, so the importance of economic power grows. Recognition of these central realities - and bipartisanship in addressing them - is critical for America’s future, and for that of the West.
Opinion
America's self-inflicted decline
If the broad post-World War II prosperity that has endured for six decades comes to an end, both the United States and Europe will be responsible. With rare exceptions, politics has become a discredited profession throughout the West. Tomorrow is always treated as more important than next week, and next week prevails over next year, with no one seeking to secure the long-term future. Now the West is paying the price.
President Barack Obama’s instincts may be an exception here, but he is fighting powerful hidebound forces in the United States, as well as a demagogic populism, in the form of the Tea Party, that is far worse - and that might defeat him in 2012, seriously damaging the United States in the process.
The United States’ friends around the world watched with dismay the recent brawl over raising the federal government’s debt ceiling, and the US congress’ inability to come to anything like a balanced and forward-looking compromise. On the contrary, the outcome represents a significant victory for the Tea Party’s minions, whose purpose seems to be to reduce government obligations and expenditures to a bare minimum (some object even to having a central bank), and to maintain President George W Bush’s outrageous tax breaks for the wealthy.
The United States’ current fiscal problems are rooted in a long period of unfunded spending. Bush’s wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the manner in which he conducted the “global war on terror” made matters much worse, contributing to a totally unsustainable situation. Indeed, Obama inherited an almost impossible legacy.
In the weeks since the debt ceiling agreement, it has become increasingly clear that good government might be impossible in the US. The coming months of campaigning for the US presidency will be spent in petty brawling over what should be cut. The example of recent weeks gives us no cause for optimism that US legislators will rise above partisan politics and ask themselves what is best for America.
In these circumstances, it is not surprising that financial markets have returned to extreme volatility. The expenditure cuts mandated by the outcome of the debt-ceiling debate will reduce economic activity, thereby undermining growth and making debt reduction even more difficult. Providing further fiscal stimulus to boost economic growth would carry its own risks, owing to the debt ceiling and another, more ominous factor: the US is already overly indebted, and there are signs that major holders of US government securities are finally tired of being repaid in depreciated currency.
Most importantly, China’s call for the introduction of a new reserve currency stems from its frustration with the failure of major governments - whether in the US or Europe - to govern their economic affairs with realism and good sense. China recognises that the US is in great difficulty (indeed, it recognises this more clearly than the US itself), and that, given the poisonous political atmosphere prevailing in Washington, there will be no easy return to good government, economic stability, and strong growth.
US leadership in world affairs began to weaken with the unilateralism of Bush, and today’s economic problems are reinforcing this tendency. To reverse the United States’ decline, Obama needs bipartisan support for his (quite mainstream) policies, but so far the US congress has shown no stomach for a principled approach to its legislative duties.
If Germany’s half-hearted efforts to stabilise Europe somehow turn out to be successful, the US position will be further eroded, and central banks around the world will begin to regard the euro once again as a reliable alternative to the dollar as a reserve currency. The alternative, as China has suggested, would be to develop a new reserve currency.
These realities represent a power shift of a kind that we have not experienced in our lifetimes. China’s economic power over the US is now substantial, and will limit not only US influence in the financial markets, but also its capacity to use military power.
If this forces the United States back towards what the international-relations scholar Joseph Nye calls “soft power and multilateral diplomacy”, it may well be a good thing. But such approaches are anathema to the US Republican Party, and to its Tea Party faction in particular, and they might unnerve the many Asians who are nervous at China’s growing military might.
The counter-argument - that any sell-off or failure by China to continue to buy US government securities would hurt China as much as the US - is not valid. As each year passes, China’s markets expand worldwide, and its domestic market comes to represent a greater percentage of its own GDP. As a result, China will not need a strong dollar in the long term. Americans need to get their economic house in order before China loses its incentive to support the dollar.
On several occasions in the post-WWII period, the US has learned with great pain that there are limits to the effective use of military power. US objectives could not be achieved in Vietnam. The outcome in Iraq will not be determined until the last American troops have been withdrawn. In Afghanistan, where withdrawal dates have already been set, it is difficult to believe that a cohesive unified state can be established.
As the efficacy of military power is reduced, so the importance of economic power grows. Recognition of these central realities - and bipartisanship in addressing them - is critical for America’s future, and for that of the West.
enragedcow
Active member
- Messages
- 211
- Likes
- 15
Atilla this post made it obvious you don't understand what a free market means. a free market does not mean that EVERYTHING is privatized it is simply markets are free to move without government intervention
the government can still have a role and provide the services you mentioned
the ones i bolded stood out because in many places these social goods are provided by the private sector on top of (and in some cases in lieu of) the public sector.
and unions, health and safety are likely to occur naturally in jobs where the worker has some bargaining power such as graduates and the other groups who have bargaining power even without government intervention.
and as mentioned, free market capitalism isn't a solution because it is a system.
certainly naive socialism bordering on communism isn't the solution either.
"the public bailed the banks out therefore should now own the banks" is political nonsense (although powerful nonsense) most ordinary people have no idea how shares work, they wouldn't understand the risks and rewards of ownership. also the government as an economic agent bailed the banks out not the taxpayers, although the funds are sourced from tax they are no longer the taxpayer's funds.
as a little thought experiment; imagine if the banks were not bailed out, go through it logically with a simple IS-LM model and assumptions to remove any anomalies such as corruption etc. i won't type it out because it would take ages and ages.
One of the conclusion i know you will reach is that a major source of tax revenue would be gone and many many many people would be unemployed (layoffs as well as unemployment from a recession/depression/cataclysm).
apologies for the ad hoc nature of the last few sentences they were afterthoughts lol
Atilla
Legendary member
- Messages
- 20,895
- Likes
- 4,067
Very interesting but you are skirting on the peripheries without saying much. Where do you stand and what do you believe?
I believe one can apply the free market place to just about any product or service. It is a system and a solution to determining the allocation of scarce resources and the distribution of rewards.
However, I believe it is the level playing field that is important and when the system is bent we have disequilibrium in the solution. This is why all the effing bankers and politicians who have screwed up have all the money and people who work hard have very little.
Do you see my point of view?
Would you like me to frame it as "it is obvious you don't understand capitalism or free markets"...
What is it with NT and you that when people have alternative views it is obvious they don't understand...
I like to think I do understand but beg to differ. 😉
Last edited:
new_trader
Legendary member
- Messages
- 6,770
- Likes
- 1,656
If you were serious about wanting to learn more about capitalism, watch this lecture. Then research any facts metioned in it to see if they can be verified.
Atilla
Legendary member
- Messages
- 20,895
- Likes
- 4,067
spreader_legger
Well-known member
- Messages
- 447
- Likes
- 38
He's wrong about predatory pricing ... I believe the Japanese used this technique in the automotive sector to gain market share.
So called dumping is not uncommon practice & often participants in the GATT negotiations blame other countries in promoting this practice.
He makes a point, however there are also others
So called dumping is not uncommon practice & often participants in the GATT negotiations blame other countries in promoting this practice.
He makes a point, however there are also others
new_trader
Legendary member
- Messages
- 6,770
- Likes
- 1,656
I would be willing to bet you didn't even watch the video I posted. Instead you closed your eyes and blocked your ears and did the "lalala" thing...
new_trader
Legendary member
- Messages
- 6,770
- Likes
- 1,656
The same Japan that has been in a recession for 20+ years?
Atilla
Legendary member
- Messages
- 20,895
- Likes
- 4,067
Yes you would be correct - however, it is because I can't not because I don't want to.
But you know I read so much books papers web - and you do know economics is a normative discipline - these links are only alternative views. Not an exact science.