So what is more important democracy or making the "Markets" happy?
10 February 2012, 03:05 PM
#31
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, we're already there, aren't we? Mammon's running the show, and history tells us that whenever he's in charge things go very wrong, very quickly. As painful as it is to admit, we've sold the fück out and now it's payback time. Hopefully, one day, humans will find a self correcting system that balances the state, the market and culture.
10 February 2012, 03:07 PM
#32
Who is the "you" in "you can"?? And we don't have "democracy" at the moment, we just have the ability to vote into our UK puppet government a new set of career politicians every 4 or 5 years. They then completely ignore what was in their manifesto that got them elected, and thus they ignore "us", and just do what their EU masters want them to do.
Dave
Dave
But the other EC governments are less spineless than ours.........
10 February 2012, 03:28 PM
#34
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd say yes and no. The impression most people have of a market economy, or of a market economy which is more free, is that certain businesses 'get away with things' that other people don't. That shouldn't ever be allowed to happen. Preventing that from happening and enforcing the law as it stands between individuals, and between individuals and companies, should be, if anything, more heavily 'policed' than it is currently. The fight against corruption should be a serious and ongoing effort by the state (effectively policing itself). This means that the likes of Rupert Murdoch, while they may come to hold a 'monopoly position' in the country's media with the potential to seriously alter the public's outlook in certain situations, should never be allowed to associate with the state. The same goes for energy and utility companies, and any other private business for that matter. They should never have any privilege over others, and they should all be equally as dispensable as each other.
Apart from that, there isn't an essential need, in my opinion, for a Competition Commission. The state has done so much in this country to promote monopolies that natural ones would seem pale by comparison.
Apart from that, there isn't an essential need, in my opinion, for a Competition Commission. The state has done so much in this country to promote monopolies that natural ones would seem pale by comparison.
Last edited by JTaylor; 10 February 2012 at 04:47 PM.
10 February 2012, 05:31 PM
#39
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 15,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can you describe exactly what would have happened if Northern Rock, Royal Bank of Scotland and Halifax/Bank of Scotland had been allowed to fail?
I am very interested in your view of this.
10 February 2012, 05:46 PM
#40
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's fairly academic anyway.
The long term effects of the bail-out are unclear also.
It is unclear if the footise will go up or down tomorrow.
10 February 2012, 06:10 PM
#41
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, can you? The banks tell me there would have been an apocalypse (not a literal one, hodgy, no actual horsemen or anything) and so did HM Government. The jury's out as to who the latter serve, but let's assume that it's the people, the consensus would be to save the banks. Or, if we assume they're serving themselves, that would have been best expressed by saving the banks. Or, if we deduce they are in servility to or agents of the banks then we can safely say they'd have saved the banks. Seems to me that the banks have moved their pieces about to give them check-mate, the only way back from there is to say the game's unfair and wipe their pieces from the table and re-write the rules.
10 February 2012, 06:21 PM
#42
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, can you? The banks tell me there would have been an apocalypse (not a literal one, hodgy, no actual horsemen or anything) and so did HM Government. The jury's out as to who the latter serve, but let's assume that it's the people, the consensus would be to save the banks. Or, if we assume they're serving themselves, that would have been best expressed by saving the banks. Or, if we deduce they are in servility to or agents of the banks then we can safely say they'd have saved the banks. Seems to me that the banks have moved their pieces about to give them check-mate, the only way back from there is to say the game's unfair and wipe their pieces from the table and re-write the rules.
The problem was never the actual economy but was always numbers in computers. That sounds glib but it is true.
10 February 2012, 06:54 PM
#43
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capitalism has proved remarkably resilient so far. I don't think it would have collapsed by the state omitting to do the bailouts, but for sure it would have changed the financial landscape in ways unknown.
The problem was never the actual economy but was always numbers in computers. That sounds glib but it is true.
The problem was never the actual economy but was always numbers in computers. That sounds glib but it is true.
10 February 2012, 07:25 PM
#44
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 15,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, can you? The banks tell me there would have been an apocalypse (not a literal one, hodgy, no actual horsemen or anything) and so did HM Government. The jury's out as to who the latter serve, but let's assume that it's the people, the consensus would be to save the banks. Or, if we assume they're serving themselves, that would have been best expressed by saving the banks. Or, if we deduce they are in servility to or agents of the banks then we can safely say they'd have saved the banks. Seems to me that the banks have moved their pieces about to give them check-mate, the only way back from there is to say the game's unfair and wipe their pieces from the table and re-write the rules.
All very nice debating points. Abstract commentary at an intellectual level.
No-one of course knows what would have happened long term - and I make no claim to - but what would have happened at that time is very clear.
Take the time to understand that, and then apply a dose of reality to the philosophical abstractions you both enjoy.
10 February 2012, 07:39 PM
#45
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All very nice debating points. Abstract commentary at an intellectual level.
No-one of course knows what would have happened long term - and I make no claim to - but what would have happened at that time is very clear.
Take the time to understand that, and then apply a dose of reality to the philosophical abstractions you both enjoy.
No-one of course knows what would have happened long term - and I make no claim to - but what would have happened at that time is very clear.
Take the time to understand that, and then apply a dose of reality to the philosophical abstractions you both enjoy.
Last edited by JTaylor; 10 February 2012 at 07:41 PM.
10 February 2012, 08:55 PM
#46
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 15,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You have not answered the question and given your commentary I am not sure you can answer the question.
And if you cannot answer the question it really undermines your argument.
At a macro level view you may be right, but you may not be. But without understanding what happens when a major retail bank collapses then, IMHO, you are not in strong position to make your argument.
And if you cannot answer the question it really undermines your argument.
At a macro level view you may be right, but you may not be. But without understanding what happens when a major retail bank collapses then, IMHO, you are not in strong position to make your argument.
10 February 2012, 08:59 PM
#47
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You don't really know do you?
....and if what you are proposing would have happened so what?
Are you saying the status quo must be protected because it is the status quo?
What ethical POV are you coming from?
The ethic of keeping your Porsche?
10 February 2012, 09:13 PM
#48
Scooby Regular
I said in a post over 3 years ago that the banking class have comprehensivley won the aguement
But the thing is Trout they, (and I use they as a loose term) framed the context of the argument
and if you have that luxury you are 99% there anyway
but hats off to them, they must laugh looking at posts on here with people jostling for the accolade of the sh1ttiest pension on scoobynet
But the thing is Trout they, (and I use they as a loose term) framed the context of the argument
and if you have that luxury you are 99% there anyway
but hats off to them, they must laugh looking at posts on here with people jostling for the accolade of the sh1ttiest pension on scoobynet
10 February 2012, 09:16 PM
#49
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You have not answered the question and given your commentary I am not sure you can answer the question.
And if you cannot answer the question it really undermines your argument.
At a macro level view you may be right, but you may not be. But without understanding what happens when a major retail bank collapses then, IMHO, you are not in strong position to make your argument.
And if you cannot answer the question it really undermines your argument.
At a macro level view you may be right, but you may not be. But without understanding what happens when a major retail bank collapses then, IMHO, you are not in strong position to make your argument.
Socialised losses and privatised profits. Forget the technicalities, what's the moral defence?
10 February 2012, 09:26 PM
#50
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kill or be killed?
Metaphorically of course.
These people have a natural right to be at the top of society?
If the system starts to tip them over then the system must be broken?
A kind of circular argument?
A kind of a monied aristocracy? A natural order based on the vanity of merit?
Metaphorically of course.
These people have a natural right to be at the top of society?
If the system starts to tip them over then the system must be broken?
A kind of circular argument?
A kind of a monied aristocracy? A natural order based on the vanity of merit?
10 February 2012, 09:28 PM
#51
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 15,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the macro level, if you'll forgive the pun, I'm absolutely on the money; you can obfuscate the moral issue of you wish, but whichever way you want to dress it up, your sector has pulled-off a massive confidence trick. Banks used to be considered respectable, most now consider them despicable.
Socialised losses and privatised profits. Forget the technicalities, what's the moral defence?
Socialised losses and privatised profits. Forget the technicalities, what's the moral defence?
I am in the interesting position to have a lot of proximity to the banking sector - something that coincidentally happened since 2008.
Now that we have that out of the way - the return the moral argument is irrelevant. You need to understand the mechanics of a major bank bust to put any argument in context.
10 February 2012, 09:28 PM
#52
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I said in a post over 3 years ago that the banking class have comprehensivley won the aguement
But the thing is Trout they, (and I use they as a loose term) framed the context of the argument
and if you have that luxury you are 99% there anyway
but hats off to them, they must laugh looking at posts on here with people jostling for the accolade of the sh1ttiest pension on scoobynet
But the thing is Trout they, (and I use they as a loose term) framed the context of the argument
and if you have that luxury you are 99% there anyway
but hats off to them, they must laugh looking at posts on here with people jostling for the accolade of the sh1ttiest pension on scoobynet
They made the rules and were able to frame the argument.
10 February 2012, 09:31 PM
#53
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What was so bad about your doomsday scenario?
10 February 2012, 09:33 PM
#54
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 15,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it very clear Trout?
You don't really know do you?
....and if what you are proposing would have happened so what?
Are you saying the status quo must be protected because it is the status quo?
What ethical POV are you coming from?
The ethic of keeping your Porsche?
You don't really know do you?
....and if what you are proposing would have happened so what?
Are you saying the status quo must be protected because it is the status quo?
What ethical POV are you coming from?
The ethic of keeping your Porsche?
IMHO without understanding the mechanics of the event you cannot take a stance on ethical or philosophical grounds.
PS The Porsche really is irrelevant - I own a car, you own a car. I have a TV, you have TV. In the scheme of the 'wealth aristocracy' we are both pawns in the same game.
10 February 2012, 09:37 PM
#55
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 15,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Modern banking has grown from a collusion of Government, State, Markets and Bankers for the last 150 years on the intrinsic scale that we know it - and for some countries much longer.
The role of Banks as an instantiation of the states monetary policy cannot see the banks role in this in isolation.
10 February 2012, 09:38 PM
#56
Scooby Regular
10 February 2012, 09:39 PM
#57
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ethical position should not depend upon outcome it should be consistent.
Anyway, were we not told that nobody knew what the consequences were? So we took all this taxpayer money and gave it to private investors and institutions on the basis we did not know the future?
You are saying the only justification for inaction was if total foresight was known? This is patently unreasonable.
10 February 2012, 09:40 PM
#58
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just for the hard of thinking - I am not a banker and I don't work in banking
I am in the interesting position to have a lot of proximity to the banking sector - something that coincidentally happened since 2008.
Now that we have that out of the way - the return the moral argument is irrelevant. You need to understand the mechanics of a major bank bust to put any argument in context.
I am in the interesting position to have a lot of proximity to the banking sector - something that coincidentally happened since 2008.
Now that we have that out of the way - the return the moral argument is irrelevant. You need to understand the mechanics of a major bank bust to put any argument in context.
10 February 2012, 09:43 PM
#59
Scooby Regular
But who are 'they'?
Modern banking has grown from a collusion of Government, State, Markets and Bankers for the last 150 years on the intrinsic scale that we know it - and for some countries much longer.
The role of Banks as an instantiation of the states monetary policy cannot see the banks role in this in isolation.
Modern banking has grown from a collusion of Government, State, Markets and Bankers for the last 150 years on the intrinsic scale that we know it - and for some countries much longer.
The role of Banks as an instantiation of the states monetary policy cannot see the banks role in this in isolation.
10 February 2012, 09:44 PM
#60
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a huge conflict of interests potentially.