Adrian F

It appears in the desire to keep the Markets happy and continue with the Federal Europe the idea of imposing politicians on countries that will follow orders and not allow the voters to vote is now being accepted

Therefore the logical conclusion appears to be that Dictatorship is acceptable as long as the Markets are happy (Which of course they would be as all they want is stability)

tony de wonderful

In theory the question should be invalid since the market is a democracy of many economic actors.

But then the world isn't as Adam Smith necessarily saw it.

Marx is more right about there being a massive gap between economic and political power in a Capitalist society, you could add a third tier to that which is financial power. The state is supposed to resolve or temper any conflicts and is struggling.

We'd have to ask what Trouts pragmatic answer would be?

Jamz3k

taking your face for a **** is pretty important.

Adrian F

It is obvious from what has happened in Italy and Greece that the European Project is now so far advanced that they can impose centrally made decisions down onto the elected governments and if not they have the power to replace you with some one that will do as told, makes you remember the Soviet Union

Jamz3k

its more important that if your gonna have a party, make sure to buy party poppers. Nothing worse than no party poppers ffs.

Trout

iTrader: (1)

I also think the question is invalid. Markets are democracy.

As for the Greek situation - the markets offered the Greeks a solution that had criteria to meet - the Prime Minister chose not to accept the criteria and an interim was put in place.

As far as I know there are democratic elections in Greece in the next couple of months - so where is the dictatorship.

Greece (like Italy) always had a choice in these matters. They may be unpalatable to the Greeks - but they have dug a monstrous hole for themselves - including lying (undemocratically) to get into the Euro to start with!

hodgy0_2

Greece (the Greek politicians) certainly cooked the books, but they had help though, from the financial markets, and I believe Goldman’s in particular, all doing god’s work

the big losers are the Greek people off course

Miniman

iTrader: (2)

The Chinese would say that it's the latter, since they don't care about the former.

hodgy0_2

presumably if the markets demand undemocratic governments, then, within the doctrine of the "primacy of markets" , they must be right

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

But what's the answer?

Allow democaracy to continue and the countries to go down the pan?

Or impose stability while you can?

JTaylor

I'm coming round to GlasgaKiss and TdW's insistence that the banks should have been allowed to fail. I've been too concerned with the short-term and the potential affect it would have had on my lifetime, but actually the right course would have been to have let the invisible hand do its work.

boxst

You cannot have a single currency without a single fiscal policy. If the Euro was ever going to work then it has to be like the United States (and it doesn't even work very well there) where there is a centrally controlling governent and each state (country in this case) has limited control. The French can add a law that they must smell of Garlic and the Germans that they must eat sausages but both the French and Germans must both adhere to the fact that you can only pay x for unemployment etc..

That is never, ever going to happen.

hodgy0_2

that is putting an almost religious faith in the "market" and its invisible hand

tony de wonderful

I think the point is that it is wider markets forcing the hand rather than say a local Greek market. So local Greek democracy has to bend to the will of worldwide or Europe wide markets.

Anyway I think we know that 'the market' is not some Adam Smith ideal, and that some actors have more share than other often enough to make the market inefficient. For example when the banks were about to fail it seems that some actors had a lot more to lose than others, hence the wealth transfer from the many to the few.

tony de wonderful

But you put faith in the government/state.

hodgy0_2

yes, to a certain degree - but you can vote them in and out

tony de wonderful

You can't vote the state out.

hodgy0_2

well that obvious (without getting into the argument regarding voting yourself out of a state , a la the SNP)

so are you arguing for markets to take supremacy over the state?

tony de wonderful

I'm saying the state should minimise its role in the allocating, managing, owning capital etc because it does this inefficiently at best, at worse it gives Politicians a way to play politics i.e buy votes or screw their enemies over.

Markets deal in allocating capital, the state reconciles, manages, controls political conflict etc.

JTaylor

What, one frontman for the city or another? Again, I've been resisting this because it challenges my 'faith' in British democracy and by extension my faith in Britain, but I can't ignore the harsh, depressing reality. I'm even starting to wonder if it was morally right for Cameron to have walked from Europe over Tobin, but of course the city was holding a gun to his head. By propping the banks up, by saying "you're too big to fail" we've empowered them further. Tony cited Jefferson the other day and I'll repeat it here:

I think I'd go with that. I've been selfish about this, knowing that my family and people I know would have stood to have lost a significant amount of money, but actually if we'd exposed ourselves to that risk we should have suffered the consequences. If a society chooses to let banking become a private enterprise and that enterprise fails, it ought to suffer the consequences. Having said all that, is the fact that there are now institutions back under the stewardship of the state a good thing? Only if the state is acting on behalf of the people and not the city, which feeds back to my opening query. If we conclude that the state is acting on behalf of the city, it rather begs the question, upon whose behalf are the city acting? Or does the buck stop there?

hodgy0_2

that sounds like a qualified yes then

I just don't believe the markets always drive these efficiencies in a system that peple assume

It would be interesting to see it tried at nation state level, and part of me would love one of these Republicans to try it in the US

GlesgaKiss

Wow, I'm taken aback. Long held opinions aren't easily let go of.

JTaylor

What does?

What alternative to you propose?

Try what?

JTaylor

I asked you about the Competition Commission the other day, but you didn't respond, #205 on the thread below. If you could answer on there (if you wish to) it'll keep it neat.

https://www.scoobynet.com/922587-goo...axpayer-7.html

hodgy0_2

That markets supersedes the state



a small state which is superceded the the market in most day to day activities

tony de wonderful

Well the obvious solution is to merge separate euro states into a euro super state, that way the state is better able to resolve and manage political vs economic conflicts, economic interests being now such much bigger than nations such as Greece.

GlesgaKiss

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.

Leslie

Now there is someone who is doing a bit of real thinking!

Les