The Capitalist Threat

[Skybird]

http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/sor2


edit: deleted.

I need to listen to this guy more often. I occasionally read something by Soros, get impressed - and forget his name again until the next time I stumble over him.

[Skybird]

Hm, they have an explicitly printed copyright claim at the end of that essay and thus I deleted the quote.

[heartc]

http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/sor2

Insofar as there is a dominant belief in our society today, it is a belief in the magic of the marketplace. The doctrine of laissez-faire capitalism holds that the common good is best served by the uninhibited pursuit of self-interest. But unless this view is tempered by the recognition of a common interest that takes precedence over individual interests, our present system--which, however imperfect, qualifies as an open society--is liable to break down.

Popper showed that fascism and communism had much in common, even though one constituted the extreme right and the other the extreme left, because both relied on the power of the state to repress the freedom of the individual. I want to extend his argument. I contend that an open society may also be threatened from the opposite direction; from excessive individualism, from too much competition and too little cooperation.
(...)
By taking the conditions of supply and demand as given and declaring government intervention the ultimate evil, laissez-faire ideology has effectively condemned income or wealth redistribution. I can agree that attempts at redistribution interfere with the efficiency of the market, but it does not follow that no attempt should be made. The laissez-faire argument relies on the same tacit appeal to perfection as did communism. It claims that if redistribution causes inefficiencies and distortions, the problems can be solved by eliminating redistribution--just as communism claimed that the duplication involved in competition was wasteful, and therefore a centrally planned economy was superior. But perfection is unattainable. Wealth does accumulate in the hands of its owners, and if there is no mechanism for redistribution, the inequities can become intolerable.

The laissez-faire argument against income redistribution invokes the doctrine of the survival of the fittest. The argument is undercut by the fact that wealth is passed on by inheritance, and the second generation is rarely as fit as the first. In any case, there is something wrong with making the survival of the fittest a guiding principle of civilized society. Social Darwinism is based on an outmoded theory of evolution, just as the equilibrium theory in economics is taking its cue from Newtonian physics. The principle that guides the evolution of species is mutation, and mutation works in a much more sophisticated way. Species and their environment are interactive, and one species serves as part of the environment for the others. There is a feedback mechanism similar to reflexivity in history, with the difference that in history the mechanism is driven not by mutation but by misconception. (I mention this because social Darwinism is one of the misconceptions driving human affairs today.) Cooperation is as much a part of the system as competition, and the slogan "survival of the fittest" distorts this fact.I need to listen to this guy more often. I occasionally read something by Soros, get impressed - and forget his name again until the next time I stumble over him.



You know, Skybird, you always feel the need to bring up what you think is some new and revolutionary approach to issues so that all the uneducated people here who are not "studying" 3+ books at the same time may share in your vast quoting...err, sorry, "knowledge".
In fact, though, most of the "interesting" ideas you "come up with" is really...
VERY OLD ****.

Take the example above. What you quoted there has been the major argument against capitalism since communism is around. It's only wrapped into smoke and mirrors a bit to make it look more neutral (*1). What this bollocks fails to acknowledge though is reality:
In the real world, the states that employ capitalism are also constitutional states with the rule of law, separation of powers and civil rights. Arguing against capitalism in the absence of rule of law and all the other pillars that form a constitutional state is completely pointless and misleading. But since devout atheists like you are often in desperate search for a proper replacement for God, you are most fanatic with worldly doctrines where it's either 0 or 1 and might not be able to grasp that.

The other part of reality that is insufficiently honored by what you quoted is the fact that pretty much all of the damn communist states have gone down the drain, but not before taking many innocent lives and existences down the same route.
It might be that on paper and viewed in isolation, capitalism is a remorseless idea, but the truth is that in the 20th century, it was communism that was the most corrupt, killed the most people including its own, brought the vastest famines, the least education and the least hope and freedom to the people who were "blessed" with its triumph over the evil idea of capitalism.



(*1)Hilarious excerpts:

"I want to extend his [Popper's] argument."
Wow, what a tripe. He doesn't want to extend it, he goes on to state the exact opposite:

"[...]that an open society may also be threatened from the opposite direction; from excessive individualism[...],"
That is rich.

Strike 1: Open society threatened by individualism. Ridiculous. Really, WTF?

Strike 2: "Excessive individualism" is an OXYMORON. You can call the individual actions or attitudes of individuals right or wrong, but there can be no "excessive individualism", since that would mean there is some higher authority which decides what is "adequate individualism" and "excessive individualism", which flies RIGHT INTO THE FACE OF THE VERY IDEA OF INDIVIDUALISM DAMMIT!

Really, if he wanted to appear as a neutral observer and not a commie, he should have put more effort into it. Then again, I guess you can write just about any tripe these days without making sense and still find someone who will quote it as the new gospel.

[heartc]

Hm, they have an explicitly printed copyright claim at the end of that essay and thus I deleted the quote.

What, are you afraid your commie friend might claim intellectual property when you only wanted to share his wisdom? Hey, here's some news for you: It doesn't belong to him either. He stole it from Marx and Engels.

[Snestorm]

http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/sor2



I need to listen to this guy more often. I occasionally read something by Soros, get impressed - and forget his name again until the next time I stumble over him.

It's very understandable that you could forget George Soros' name.

By the time I got half way through his writing, I'd forgotten what it was that he was trying to convey. He talks too much, without saying anything.

[nikimcbee]

One for the good ol days:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zx4lVuf7uBg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68zpOQd_lO0&feature=related

[XabbaRus]

I'm sorry in my opinion George Soros is a crook and a profiteer who almost crashed the United Kingdom by causing a run on the pound and also been mixing up and intefering in other countries governmental processes.

[Skybird]

It's very understandable that you could forget George Soros' name.

By the time I got half way through his writing, I'd forgotten what it was that he was trying to convey.
Add some RAM bars to your brainboard. ;)


Soros knows the financial market from both sides, and this is what makes his criticism a bit more well-founded then the superficial arguments "this good, that evil" that we usually hear most of the time.

Beyond that, the question is whether or not his essay makes sense. And to me it makes perfect sense. It's not that much different than what I use to say.

and Niki,
if you think your videos are an adequate rethoric reply, than you might want to read him again. ;) Especially where he is about fashism and communism. ;)

[CaptainHaplo]

At least the arguement is honest about its intent - the "redistribution" of wealth. Most such arguements aim for it without being willing to say it.

However, the first problem is that it incorrectly puts forth a position in which to argue against - that of a "free market" should be "uninhibited" in any way. Any realist that supports a free market system, does so with the understanding that the definition of such includes minimal governmental interference. They also realize that such governmental and other input is necessary to assist in protecting the consumer, and the market itself from predatory acts.

Its easy to "make sense" when you distort the position of your opponents.

Second, the comments are based off the arguement that wealth redistribution is somehow a desireable thing for society. However, it fails to lay any groundwork for such an assumption, so one must conclude that the writing/speech was in fact meant for the ears of those who already hold such views. Wealth redistribution is simply a nice way of saying "stealing from one person to give to another." You can term it however you want, but it still boils down to stealing what doesn't belong to you. Regardless of how "Robin Hood" it sounds, its still a taking by force that which you have no right to take. But since Soros is an advocate of it (though notice not for himself - as he does not give to everyone of his own wealth so that he is on the same economic level as the rest of society) - there is no discussion of the legal, moral or ethical issues of a wealth distribution policy.

I could continue - his views are full of holes and highly hypocritical. But he does what many good propogandists will - mix a tiny bit of truth into the distortions he wants to sell.

[MothBalls]

For me the only part of his diatribe that made any sense was this:

In social sciences the relationship between statements and facts is less clear-cut because in human affairs perceptions help determine reality and facts do not necessarily constitute reliable criteria for judging the truth of statements.

Let's not confuse anything with the facts.

I think it comes down to this. The "haves" want and enjoy capitalism. The "have not's" want to be equal with the "haves", they just don't want to work for it.

[Happy Times]

I'm sorry in my opinion George Soros is a crook and a profiteer who almost crashed the United Kingdom by causing a run on the pound and also been mixing up and intefering in other countries governmental processes.

He almost did the same to Finland in the 90s.

[Snestorm]

@Skybird,
The brainboard has sufficient RAM. The Energy Input had to be, and was, raised.

I think it comes down to this. The "haves" want and enjoy capitalism. The "have not's" want to be equal with the "haves", they just don't want to work for it.

I agree completely. It's a drive toward communism. The hardest hit victims would be the middle class, as usual.

[SteamWake]

Soros is a dangerous man.

[FIREWALL]

Ask any "former" communist from the "former" Solviet Union living a free and better lifestyle somewhere else.

What they think about Communism ? I have. :yep:

You start telling them how great communism is, You better have a Good health plan. :haha:

Hard line Communism has went the way of the Dodo. :haha:

Even the Chinese figured that out. :p2:

They diluted theirs with alittle Capitolism. :up:

[nikimcbee]

Ask any "former" communist from the "former" Solviet Union living a free and better lifestyle somewhere else.

What they think about Communism. I have. :yep:

You start telling them how great communism is, You better have a Good health plan. :haha:

Hard line Communism has went the way of the Dodo. :haha:

Even the Chinese figured that out. :p2:

They diluted theirs with alittle Capitolism. :up:

Frontline had a great show on China. If you want to see the communist half, go to Western China, if you want to se the laissez faire half, go to Eastern China. Basically, the crux of the show was, China is going to have some serious demographic issues if the westerners want a better life and move east. 1, there isn't enough jobs for everybody, 2 they will have one hellva famine if the farmers leave for the big city. I think China will be interesting in the next 100 years, if they have a big population shift.

[nikimcbee]

@SB
and Niki,
if you think your videos are an adequate rethoric reply, than you might want to read him again. ;) Especially where he is about fashism and communism. ;)

Not a rhetorical reply, just a test to see if to got a "warm, fuzzy feeling in your leg" If yes, then you must miss Erich Hoenicker then. If no; well no harm no foul.:D

[Skybird]

I see. No comments to be expected in this thread that are not dictated by Pavlovian reflexes. Display of the stimulus: "capitalism not all out good", automatically and inevitably produces sobber: "It's total communism...!"

Oh my.

[nikimcbee]

@ SB part II

Just for you: enjoy:yeah:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iz34m8__u8&feature=related

(Ja, Ich weiss diese Lied)

[nikimcbee]

I see. No comments to be expected in this thread that are not dictated by Pavlovian reflexes. Display of the stimulus: "capitalism not all out good", automatically and inevitably produces sobber: "It's total communism...!"

Oh my.

...and Pavlov would have a fun time with me.:haha:

[FIREWALL]

I see. No comments to be expected in this thread that are not dictated by Pavlovian reflexes. Display of the stimulus: "capitalism not all out good", automatically and inevitably produces sobber: "It's total communism...!"

Oh my.

No. You... as usual want everyone to agree with you and not have a thought or opinion of their own. that doesn't agree with you.

As Indiana Jone said " Get out of the library and into the field more," :haha:

[nikimcbee]

No. You... as usual want everyone to agree with you and not have a thought or opinion of their own. that doesn't agree with you.

As Indiana Jone said " Get out of the library and into the field more," :haha:

That's funny, because it reminded me of a boss I had that like to argue with everybody, and I wouldn't argue with him.:haha: It kinda ruined the fun for him.

[Skybird]

No. You... as usual want everyone to agree with you and not have a thought or opinion of their own. that doesn't agree with you.

As Indiana Jone said " Get out of the library and into the field more," :haha:
Well, he certainly did not tell that to you, since you even raise a wrong impression of Soro's stand on communism in that essay. Before you go into the field, get your text together. ;)

[FIREWALL]

HA!!! I didn't even bother to read it. :har:

[Skybird]

You must not tell that, it was almost obvious.

[Snestorm]

A big problem with Mr Solos' writing is that it's done in scholars' english, which 97% of the english speaking population has to slow down and translate from english to english. When one can not easily reach 97% of his readers it is NOT superior english. It is a lack of communication skills.

Example:
"Keep the flies off your glass and the bears off your ass."
This is an example of truckers' english. Beyond the borders of the transport branch it's poor english because, again, the majority of the people have to translate it from english to english.

Most people do not speak in the language of their particular branch while communicating with others outside said branch. If Mr Solos is seeking wide readership he should take a hint.

Imagine a conversation of doctors, lawyers, and psychologists all speaking in their branch language. In spite of their all being highly educated, I seriousely doubt that the conversation would go smoothly.

[FIREWALL]

When I want to read something dry, I'll read Crossing the Sahara.

Probably more informative and interesting. :03:

[heartc]

HA!!! I didn't even bother to read it. :har:

But...but...you naughty boy! That was an excessive individualist decision of yours!!! And that IS VERBOTEN!

[FIREWALL]

But...but...you naughty boy! That was an excessive individualist decision of yours!!! And that IS VERBOTEN!


:up: gotta luv ya. :har:

[heartc]

Careful there.

;)

[XabbaRus]

I see. No comments to be expected in this thread that are not dictated by Pavlovian reflexes. Display of the stimulus: "capitalism not all out good", automatically and inevitably produces sobber: "It's total communism...!"

Oh my.

I find your arrogance astounding, I really do.

[heartc]

I find your arrogance astounding, I really do.

If you were not a mod, he would have edited his ignore list by now yet again lol.

[Skybird]

I find your arrogance astounding, I really do.

So do I find the extremely polarised, simplified thinking behind most of the answers: "If it is not 100% totally unregulated free-to take-prey capitalism, then it must be automatically communism." Simplified black-and-white thinking it is, a polarised world view that only knows two schemes indeed.

Therefore I think there are worse things to find astounding then just my "arrogance". If arrogance means to not ennoble any unqualified heckling by spending time and attention on it as if it were a valid, content-related reply, then I hope I am belonging to the most arrogant people you can imagine, because then the meaning of "arrogance" really has been turned into a compliment. ;)

[FIREWALL]

@ Skybird

You just want a stamp of approval on everything you post.

With all your book learning you've learned nothing... NOTHING. :nope:

[Skybird]

If you say so, it must be true. Anyway, thank you for your content-related, insightful adressing of Soro's text that you have not read. :yeah:

[FIREWALL]

Your Welcome. :DL

[CaptainHaplo]

Lets not take this personal folks - people have different views, and there is no call to insult them because you differ with them.

That stands for both sides.

With that said, Skybird, I did answer the thread with more than just "capitalism is good" - in fact I pointed out that the context of the arguement he makes misrepresent most "free market" views.

I think if your going to debate capitalism, you have to start by defining not only it, but also its alternatives. Since his own writing brings up wealth redistribution, its clear that is the alternative he supports. However, he does not address the legal, moral or ethical problems with such schemes. Instead, he intentionally misrepresented what a "free" market normally is.

As I said, its easy to make sense when you assign the other side an erronious and foolish position.

[IanC]

I always find it amusing when a multi-billionaire talks against capitalism...
Of course it's not a perfect system, but no doubt it's the best one out there right now. If not in theory, then for sure in practice.

[Skybird]

Haplo,

The problem in your argument is that you call it "stealing" when corrections of profit gains are suggested that as prodits in themselves has been gained by questionable methods. That is exaclty one of his points: that today this selfish predatory egoism of some is at the cost and does damage to the many and by that poses a huge threat to open society. On the one side you just said that minimal market regulation is needed and more realistic to define "free market", and that Soros understanding of free market is wrong, but at the same time you label these corrections and regulations as "stealing" and "Robin Hood" mentality. Which leaves you again with the unregulated markets and predatory selfishness of the few acting at the cost of the many - what you have cliamed to be in need of minimum regulation, that is an evil in itself since it is stealing - etc. etc.

I think you have successfully distracted yourself from the problem here. You claim to admit a problem - but you prevent it from getting adressed.

I think the bamking crisis and the brutal selfishness of bankers already being busy with filling their sacks with gold again, really should teach a lesson here. and nobody should think it is the only bad example of how seriously flawed the idea of a market regulating itself for the better interest of the community is.

The greed of the few and their rivalry, never leads to the better interst of the many, but to the explitation of the many. Only when the greed of the one realsies that the one has a greater profit from acting not selfishly, but more cooperating and altruistic together with the many, a greater profit for all can emerge. In all Western states where political control has faled to keep business and fiances in check, the split between the poor and the rich becomes greater and greater. the richer becomes fewer, and the poorer become more. Also, the richer becomes even richer, and the poorer become even poorer - although most of them work even more than before. It is en vogue to paint all poor as social parasites that are all guilty by themselves, and to think that birth dincitions have no decisive effect on future chnaces of somebody. I see it as consequence of Protestant working ethics and this strange claim that success equals God'S love, and if success ifs not there, the person is just a sinner not having tried hard enough to please God. It is a consequence of a religious dogmatic tradition, that is not only very inhumane and injust, but for that reason of it's nature is so hard to root out.

when you'Re born poor, and must fight for survival from early on, this fight for the immediate needs keep most people from trying to learn more so that they have a chance to imrpoove their social status or that of their kids. Today we see that even good education still sees many people falling through the social net, and you can work 7 days 14 hours, and still see ypourself not being able to climb up on the ladder. For most people it is like this. the idea that everybody could make it up to millionaire if only he tries hard enough, is a wrong lie, and a mean lie it is, too. On the other hand, somebody born in a rich family has opportunities that poor families and individuals for the most never weill have - only a tiny frqaction of them makes it by their own hard work, most work their a##es off and still see no reward. But rich Billy eventually can eventually afford to even not work hard himself and not to learn and not go to university, and still living by the wealth of his family. somuch for equal chances att he starting line. sometimes there is a story "from rags to riches". And for every such storty, you have some hundred faites who tried as hard - and did stay with rags and no welath at all.

This is the uncomfortable truth about the American fairy tale dream. It simply is a myth, and its' existence helps the rich to stay wealthy and in power, by distracting the poor and channel their energy to help keeping up the system that secures the profits for the few. That's why they keep it alive! It's not much different from a daily soap that sets in the world of the rich and the beautiful. Such telenovelas are said to be the most popular not amongst the social higher classes - but the poor people, and the social underclass. And that is the same no matter whether you look at europe, or Brazil, or the US. Though I once saw a TV docu on Rio that showed that in Brazil it seems to be especially extreme.

[Skybird]

I always find it amusing when a multi-billionaire talks against capitalism...
Of course it's not a perfect system, but no doubt it's the best one out there right now. If not in theory, then for sure in practice.

Forbes lists him as 29th richest American, and estimates his incomes since he became active to 13 billion - of which he has given 7 billion back to institutions, think tanks and his own foundation. He certainly is familiar with how capitalism and hedgefonts work .

And by that knowledge he became also a bit critical of it.

Paul volcker wrote in 2003, according to wikipedia:


George Soros has made his mark as an enormously successful speculator, wise enough to largely withdraw when still way ahead of the game. The bulk of his enormous winnings is now devoted to encouraging transitional and emerging nations (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Emerging_nation) to become 'open societies,' open not only in the sense of freedom of commerce but—more important—tolerant of new ideas and different modes of thinking and behavior.

Americans usually are eager to reject mandatory social duties to the community (see the health care war), and to proudly refer to what they call voluntary charity instead. Well, in a way that is what Soros does: he spends part of his wealth to help other nations to improve their economic situation, and to invest into new thinking models and new ways and approaches, and he spends in education and charity as well. and obviously he does so on a bigger scale than we all can afford to do together.

Yes, very amusing. ;)

Read his biography here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros

That some of the posts above implied that he defends communism or his agument defends communism, where in fact he played a crucial role in overcoming the hungarian tyranny and supports oppositionmovements in former parts fo the USSR, is absurd and one of the reasons why I was mocking one one or two posts earlier.

And Xabba, if the wikipedia text is true, then he did not bring misery to the Britsh currency by himself, but took advantage of the British bank acting very stupidly all by itself. And in such cases, my sympathy is limited.


Edit: Oooops - just past the 15K mark! :woot:

[IanC]

Forbes lists him as 29th richest American, and estimates his incomes since he became active to 13 billion - of which he has given 7 billion back to institutions, think tanks and his own foundation. He certainly is familiar with how capitalism and hedgefonts work .

And by that knowledge he became also a bit critical of it.



Yes but my point is, give him the choice to be either very very poor or very very rich, and see which one he chooses. :03:
*reminder: He became rich with capitalism.

edit: there's just something...strange... about listening to somebody who is denouncing the very system that enables him to live the very, very, veeery good life. know what I mean?

[CaptainHaplo]

The problem in your argument is that you call it "stealing" when corrections of profit gains are suggested that as prodits in themselves has been gained by questionable methods.

"Questionable methods" are distinctly different from illegal ones. If you think something is "wrong" - work within the system to legislatively define it as illegal. "Correction of profits" is easily done if those profits were then gained illegally. However - "redistributing" those profits - when you have no legal basis or right to them in the first place - is theft.

I don't have a problem with regulation in limited ways of the market. That would curtail those "questionable" profits, in a legal manner. But high taxes on "the rich" penalizes not just those who profitted in "questionable" ways, but also those who did so in very honest and moral ways. Taxing corporations hurts the employees as much as it does the stockholders - and there are alot more employees than there are stockholders more often, and those employees are not "the rich". If they were, they wouldn't be employees.

On the one side you just said that minimal market regulation is needed and more realistic to define "free market", and that Soros understanding of free market is wrong, but at the same time you label these corrections and regulations as "stealing" and "Robin Hood" mentality. Which leaves you again with the unregulated markets and predatory selfishness of the few acting at the cost of the many - what you have cliamed to be in need of minimum regulation, that is an evil in itself since it is stealing - etc. etc.

No Skybird, you make the mistake that those like Soros want you to make. You are equating minimal regulation - aka defining market-wide minimum behavioral standards - to federally controlled business behavior.

For example - I have no problem with a minimum wage law. This helps make sure that a business does not prosper by repressing its workers. However, a "maximum" wage is another issue - because once the government starts defining both the bottom and top of the scale, they control the entire scale. Business has the right to pay MORE to hire top quality talent than a competitor, if they wish.

I have no issue with a Federal inspector making sure the meat I get in the grocery is healthy. I do however have a problem with the government telling the rancher how much he can sell the cow for. Or the butcher how much he must charge me for my steak.

I don't have a problem with government breaking up huge monopolies to insure competition. I have a problem with them BECOMING the monopoly for a good or service.

None of the above examples that are currently done are "evil" - they are protections for the citizenry. But each can - and in one case is trying to be - taken too far.

I think the bamking crisis and the brutal selfishness of bankers already being busy with filling their sacks with gold again, really should teach a lesson here. and nobody should think it is the only bad example of how seriously flawed the idea of a market regulating itself for the better interest of the community is.

On this my friend - we agree. However, that agreement is at the surface only. There is indeed a lesson to be learned - but it COULD NOT be learned BECAUSE of government interference. Had the government not bailed out those banks, the "fat cat" bankers would have lost their A$$es, and that is the market regulating and correcting itself. However, taxpayers were instead hooked to eat the damage, leaving those responsible to continue as they always have. Of anything, this shows how the government screwed the market, and the people, by not allowing the correction to take place!

Make no mistake - wealth was redistributed - from the pocket of the average taxpayer. That is not the way the market is supposed to work, but thanks to the government - it did "work" that way. One huge issue I had with Bush was that whole "bailout". Let it crash and let em eat the repercussions of their own foolishness!

[Snestorm]

On this my friend - we agree. However, that agreement is at the surface only. There is indeed a lesson to be learned - but it COULD NOT be learned BECAUSE of government interference. Had the government not bailed out those banks, the "fat cat" bankers would have lost their A$$es, and that is the market regulating and correcting itself. However, taxpayers were instead hooked to eat the damage, leaving those responsible to continue as they always have. Of anything, this shows how the government screwed the market, and the people, by not allowing the correction to take place!

Make no mistake - wealth was redistributed - from the pocket of the average taxpayer. That is not the way the market is supposed to work, but thanks to the government - it did "work" that way. One huge issue I had with Bush was that whole "bailout". Let it crash and let em eat the repercussions of their own foolishness!

Here, you and I are in 100% agreement.
Very well stated, and right on target.

[IanC]

Let it crash and let em eat the repercussions of their own foolishness!

Yeah but if it crashed, wouldn't it be the little guy (me and you) who would be eating it?

[Skybird]

"Questionable methods" are distinctly different from illegal ones. If you think something is "wrong" - work within the system to legislatively define it as illegal. "Correction of profits" is easily done if those profits were then gained illegally. However - "redistributing" those profits - when you have no legal basis or right to them in the first place - is theft.

I don't have a problem with regulation in limited ways of the market. That would curtail those "questionable" profits, in a legal manner. But high taxes on "the rich" penalizes not just those who profitted in "questionable" ways, but also those who did so in very honest and moral ways. Taxing corporations hurts the employees as much as it does the stockholders - and there are alot more employees than there are stockholders more often, and those employees are not "the rich". If they were, they wouldn't be employees.

States regulate by two means: laws - and a system of taxes, subsidies and sanctions.

No Skybird, you make the mistake that those like Soros want you to make. You are equating minimal regulation - aka defining market-wide minimum behavioral standards - to federally controlled business behavior.

For example - I have no problem with a minimum wage law. This helps make sure that a business does not prosper by repressing its workers. However, a "maximum" wage is another issue - because once the government starts defining both the bottom and top of the scale, they control the entire scale. Business has the right to pay MORE to hire top quality talent than a competitor, if they wish.

We have seen most banks, if not all, not paying more for more competent managers, but because all those bankers agreed to fill their pockets at the cost of the community. and even those faling and causing much damage, got golden handshakes. Even the biggest loosers and those doing incredible damage, got trucks loaded with golden sacks. Competence obviously has nothing to do with it.

there needs to be a lower AND upper limit for wages. If you leave wages to the self.regulation of companies, you only will see those on top of the hierarchy filling their pockets, and absuing their power to influence situational variables so that in the future they can get even more. Because you leave them the freedom to do so. That is because this is what they are expected to do and is the basis of this economical system: egoism, selfishness, greed. Not competence, not loyalty, not the well-being of the company one is working for becomes the motivation for one'S acting, but the craving for pressing more gains out of the situation one is in - before moving on to the next job and doing there the same. suck as much blood out of the company as you can, then move on to the next. This year we have seen many, many, many managers getting revealed to behave like this, and even not being ashamed to keep on sucking blood like crazy even when the company was already dying and workers lost their existential basis.

it is not only bankers and stock mangers. Investement funds, "locusts", and international mega corporations are also on my mind. And if a company has managed to achieve a monopole, this also means that the consummer no longer has an alternative to this company, hammering the last nail into "free markets' " coffin. Some products we cannot avoid to live with. Which gives said monpoplistic companies an ammount of power that is a frontal assault on the very basic idea of freedom itself.

Also, those at the top have the power to influence legislation and law-making os that it is to their liking. This is what economic lobbying is abiut, and the efforts made there are immense and go far beyond what the voters can use in power with those funny, follish elections. Law-making already is in the hand of those trying to protect their profits. The ditanc ebetween politics - which should be independant from private business - and business, is non-existent. And that simply is a deeply corrupted system.


I have no issue with a Federal inspector making sure the meat I get in the grocery is healthy. I do however have a problem with the government telling the rancher how much he can sell the cow for. Or the butcher how much he must charge me for my steak.

This may raise emotional support, but is not relevant for the discussion, since nobody made such a statement, or said something to which it could be linked.


I don't have a problem with government breaking up huge monopolies to insure competition. I have a problem with them BECOMING the monopoly for a good or service.
Agreed. even more so if politics are so heavily corrupted by economic selfish interest, are corrupted, and see something we should not have at all: professional life-long career politicians.

As I see it, the communal interest and the profit interest of the economy, which is anything but altruistic, are antagonists if the community is beyond a certain size. As I repeatedly said, democracy and capitalsim are models whose funcatioinability I see as depending on community size - and they function as stated only in relatively small communities. nation-wide? Forget it! This is a basic problem in the prersent and I see no remedy to this one. anothe r ajor problem is the already existing deep -rooting corruption of politics, since as I see it the state should be the authority defining lkmits and rules by which the economy should go so that it serves the needs of the community (the primary purpose of an economy!!!) but also gives a certain reward to those running that economy by their own effort (workers as well as factory owners). In case of conflict between communal interest and selfish interest of the factory owner, the state should be ready to function as a shield for the community, which otherwise has the fewer means of defence against the egoism of the few, the more the few have already managed to raise monopoles. To fulfill this function, the independenca of poltical actors from economical lobbies, is a necessary precondition.

I think a culture is more than a community of consummers only. that is too materailistic an understanding for me, and capitalism certainly is materialism in it's most essential form. I reject that kind of world views, and I claim there are values and qualities that are non-materialistic, that cannot be expressed in money or possession, and that are worth to be defended against materialistic exploitation and supression, where needed. These qualities are what makes a community actually a "Kultur" in the German meaning of the word (different to English) and with a positive connotation. Not leaving fine arts to the dictate by the public taste only is such a quality, or not leaving TV to the tyranny of quota efficiency only. Solidarity of members of a given community, and what european tradition once has called "social market economy" (social, not socialist!!!). If anything gets reglated b the market only, by the manipulation of profiteers trying to maximise their profit, then we all end as dumb swines standing by the trough, eating and sh!tting all day long, and that's all there is in our lives then.

That is materialism!

Sorry, not good enough for me.


On this my friend - we agree. However, that agreement is at the surface only. There is indeed a lesson to be learned - but it COULD NOT be learned BECAUSE of government interference. Had the government not bailed out those banks, the "fat cat" bankers would have lost their A$$es, and that is the market regulating and correcting itself. However, taxpayers were instead hooked to eat the damage, leaving those responsible to continue as they always have. Of anything, this shows how the government screwed the market, and the people, by not allowing the correction to take place!

You speak about correcting miastakes that you nevertheless allow to happen. I consider it to be more clever to prevent the appearing of damages in the first. Prevention is better than repair. and the level of freedom you allow for the market not only guarantees that the egoism of the few will time and again cause distortions at the cost of the community that must then be repaired - since oyu market bases on greed and envy and selfishness, allowing that freedom to it means that you willingly provoke these distortions in the first.

Make no mistake - wealth was redistributed - from the pocket of the average taxpayer. That is not the way the market is supposed to work, but thanks to the government - it did "work" that way. One huge issue I had with Bush was that whole "bailout". Let it crash and let em eat the repercussions of their own foolishness!

In the light of what I said in just the paragraph above, you can imagine how incredibly biased, one-sided and distorted this description must necessarily appear to me.

the split between rich and poor, is widening. There are few and fewer rich people, and more and kore poor people. And the rich become even richer, and the poor become even poorer. Don't tell me this is only becasue of politics interfering with the market. Most of these politcal events indeed is due to interference by the actors of the market. The market has helped very much to make politics what it is today. In that, the poor condition the political culture is in today is very much symptomatic for the market mechanism and motivations running the economy. So you can hardly use politics as the argument against regulating markets. The current politics are one porimary argument of why the market must be kept under tigther regulation.

The only question is - and here we probably share concerns - regulated by whom? Certainly not market actors and economic lobbies.

It's all FUBAR, isn't it. the way the political structure of our societies was meant to be, certainly is like anything but that. and that there are other factor contributing to the messing up of things, which are run by self-dynmaics beyond control (namely bureaucracy, and the emerging of a class of professional career politicians), does not make it any better.

[CaptainHaplo]

IanC - the only "little guys" that would have "eaten it" had the market crashed were those foolish enough to do things like take out loans for more house than they could afford, using ARM's that they knew would adjust. I have little sympathy for those that knowingly live outside their means, then whine when the account comes due.

Would that have caused a disruption? Yes. Would it have caused some heartache to those who had to go thru it? Yes. Would they have ever been foolish enough to repeat the mistake? Probably not. Thus, the "market" corrects itself - and helps prevent - repeats of the problem. And the bankers who had been making money hand over fist using questionable ethics - approving loans they knew were highly likely to default - would have paid a heavy price as well.

Ultimately - look at where we are. How much added to the national debt, unemployment nationally at 10%, job losses still occuring. With the weakness in the dollar, we are on the edge of a depression - and what have we gained? Nothing. The problems actually still exist in the market overall, and that means that the market is still due for a correction. How much bailing do you want to do?

Did those bailouts really save homeowners who were over their head? Most of them are still "underwater" in their mortgages, and have no real likelyhood of getting back above water. The banks however, are sitting pretty. Seems like "the little guy" - at least those who were part of the problem - are still eating it - but the fat cats arent. The market doesn't play favorites - but the fat cats got that golden parachute thanks to the government using our tax dollars. Where was the chute for the people?

With the money we spent - and I posted on it a while back - every distressed mortgage in America could have had about 40K applied to it. I don't agree with bailouts - but if your going to bail someone out - target the people who truly need it. That infusion would have not only solidified 85% of the distressed homes, but would have resulted in the same infusion of money into the banking sector. That would mean the market problems - that still exist today - would have been alleviated.

[CaptainHaplo]

Skybird - yes, regulated by whom is a huge question. But so is "regulated to what level".

You point out that we allow the market to deviate and fluctuate - causing the distortions. Yes, you have a valid point. However, this is why the free market works. It would be grand to be able to take the risk out of the market - but when you remove risk, you remove reward.

And therein lies the fundamental issue. Should those who are willing to risk much, be able to gain much as a result of the risk? This is the basic question of the free market. It is both its greatest upside, and for those that risk and lose, one of its greatest tragedies. No - it is not a perfect system, but compare it to any other, and it provides for the greatest potential.

You see the free market system as all about greed and consumerism. I differ there, because I see it as a tool for managing risk and reward. Yes, a person who is unwise and irresponsible in their finances can lose everything. But a person who takes the time to define for themselves "acceptable" risk in the market, will not ever lose more than they have already deemed acceptable, and those that do it that way, ultimately succeed.

The free market only fails when it becomes other than what it is designed to be,

If you take the risk, you accept the possibilities of both loss or gain. You can risk your capital, you can risk your relationship with your customers, you can risk the quality of your products - and those risks can bite you in the arse and bring all you have worked for down around your ears, or lift you to the top. The challenge is understanding what risks to take - and which ones to avoid.

[Skybird]

- but when you remove risk, you remove reward.

And therein lies the fundamental issue. Should those who are willing to risk much, be able to gain much as a result of the risk? This is the basic question of the free market.

I cant see top bankers and top managers of economy taking risks. Thatw ould mean they risk their own wealth, which they don'T. not only is it the wealth of others that they risk, not their own, but they even provoke risks for the others in order to maximise their own personal profit.

Obviuously "taking risks" mneanbs to things, then. First it could meaning the pirvate businessman using his own limited money to found a small enterprise and then manage it that way that his worker's jobs are safe, and his enterprise can survive with giving him a living on a materially safe level.

And nthen it could mean the casion mentality that has caused havoc recently, and that does not mean to face respnsibility and does not take risks for it's own interests - only puts the interests of other people, mainly the poorer and the weaker ones, at risk.

A banker, btw, is not doing a constructive work. A speculant does not construct something, an investment manager does not show creativity. what these jobs are doujng is exploiting others, plain and simple. And often they provoke great damages to the others or the whole community in order to please a small clients' greedy interests to gain more. and more. And more.


It is both its greatest upside, and for those that risk and lose, one of its greatest tragedies. No - it is not a perfect system, but compare it to any other, and it provides for the greatest potential.
Take away all the shine and the glitter, and what are you left with? A culture that has eroded it's ressource basis to a level where our global civlisation'S survival is put into question, environmental damages got enforced that negatively feed back onto our survival chnces in the lon term - for the sake of short termed profits of the few, and all the temporary welath that has been created over the past 100 years (if that many) is doomed to disappear soon again, but having eaten up our chances to start new afterwards, and hopefully a bit wiser. That is the realisation of the potential you are so pprud of - and it leaves me relatively unimpressed, I admit. To me it is a celeb's well-staged act of committing suicide in the most luxurious and glamorous way for the sake of making it into the next day's headlines for that.

You see the free market system as all about greed and consumerism. I differ there, because I see it as a tool for managing risk and reward.
See above, and what on earlier occasions I said about community sizes detemrining the functioning - or lack of - of capitalism and democracy.

Yes, a person who is unwise and irresponsible in their finances can lose everything. But a person who takes the time to define for themselves "acceptable" risk in the market, will not ever lose more than they have already deemed acceptable, and those that do it that way, ultimately succeed.
That may be true with the small village drugstore or the small village windmill in that rural valley idyll up in the mountaisn, where they live in a community of 300 souls. but in any mahor city, business reality already is less idyllic. And on the level of national and international companies your way to paint the picture of how people accept risks and run business, is simply naive, I fear.

the greta mistake you imo fall to is that you think the distortions are the exceptions of your ideal rule that is called "classical economy theory". But the expections are not expections, but they have become the rule, powerful enoiugh to dominate market events and the economic environemt for all, and not only allowing but actively provoking distortions that doiminate the market and make it difficult for those who try to do constructive, creative business the way you want to see it being done.

I refer to the essay-post from a week ago, where i also mentioned these things in brief.

If there is one thing to be learned from the past couple of years, then that things simply do not work the way you describe them, and cannot work that way, due to the inherent nature of this system you describe being too flawed in itself. You assume precodntiions thzat simply do not exist, and you assume a purified reality to be able for serving as the standard that in that purified form is an utopian myth, at best. And where the fincial ecinmy is following your recommendations again already - we already see again thze creation of the next bubble, and already again we see the shameless behavior of banks and bankers again that has so very much caused and helped the collapse of the past 18 months.

Obviously nothing has been learned. And you recommend the same recipes that we just have had, excusing them by that those having forseen the disaster and warned of it and wanted to prevent it by tighter regulations - that these warners are the one being responisble for the mess happening...?

I find it hard to describe how I feel about that kind of - bizarre reasoning without raising my voice.

Think about the scaling of community sizes and the way this influences the functionality of market mechanisms and democracy, what I mentioned here, and before, too. You ignore this factor completely, and I think this is a great mistake. What you describe I could imagine to work in small communities of just some hundred people, and in limited habitat sizes/limited environments. But some tens of thousands of people, if not millions and hundreds of millions? No chance.

[IanC]

Very interesting CaptainHaplo, TFEM :yep:

[Snestorm]

You see the free market system as all about greed and consumerism. I differ there, because I see it as a tool for managing risk and reward. Yes, a person who is unwise and irresponsible in their finances can lose everything. But a person who takes the time to define for themselves "acceptable" risk in the market, will not ever lose more than they have already deemed acceptable, and those that do it that way, ultimately succeed.

The free market only fails when it becomes other than what it is designed to be,

If you take the risk, you accept the possibilities of both loss or gain. You can risk your capital, you can risk your relationship with your customers, you can risk the quality of your products - and those risks can bite you in the arse and bring all you have worked for down around your ears, or lift you to the top. The challenge is understanding what risks to take - and which ones to avoid.

This does not only apply to large corporations at one end of the stick, nor to small communities at the other.

This is how I survive in a healthy economy, and prosper in a bad economy. Although I can only work one at a time, I keep an open mind to the possibilies of 2 continents, and remain prepared for neccesary relocation.

Not only am I debt-free. I've EARNED enough reserves that if neccesary, I could rest on my hind quarters for a couple of years without taking anything from anyone. I don't believe in welfare and have never accepted unemployment compensation, even when I was "entitled" to it.

Just a trucker that's watched materialism/consumerism enslave people to debt.

[CaptainHaplo]

Snes - all I can say is -:yeah: - if more people had the same view, then half the arguement would be moot.

Skybird - you don't think companies take risks? You don't think bankers take risks? Had the market been allowed to correct itself - alot of those "fat cat" bankers would be the ones without jobs, and little prospects of getting one in the financial industry - because nobody wants to hire someone who ran a company into the ground to do the same for them.
Companies - even large multinational companies - take risks all the time. In fact, once you get above a certain size, it becomes a matter of balancing one risk against another.

Lets take a company that sells and supports widgets. Do they invest Millions into the next generation of widget, or do they go with what is working right now? If they fail to develop - a competitor may clobber them. If they do develop, they run the risk of failure. Even if the next widget is great, they still have to support it - and often that means working customer bases that are, by definition, resistant to change. If the next widget is more complex than the last, then they start looking at whether the end customer can handle the install or operation without training, etc etc. It goes on and on.

Every business decision is a risk in a free market. Some risk is acceptable - others are not. What your saying is remove the risk - which is tatamount to saying "there is no risk - we guarantee success". Ok - who is going to "guarantee it"? The government? What will they guarantee it with? Oh thats right - they have your and my tax money to do that with. As soon as you move away from a risk/reward system - with all its pitfalls and flaws, you move into a system where a lack of effort, a lack of innovation and a lack of good business practices gains the same as that of its opposite - which means no one has any INCENTIVE to perform beyond the minimal. This creates stagnation.

A perfect example is your beloved environment. Do you think those that are researching the "science", pushing the agenda, and actually developing "green" ways to do things, are doing it out of a sense of social consciousness? Or are they getting PAID???? Sure they might want to do "good" - but the vast majority would walk away from it if there wasn't money involved. I don't know anyone who actively wants to avoid "good work" - but its alot easier to get motivated when there is a monetary benefit. Speaking of - who does most of the true development for green solutions? Its those evil corporations - because to fail to do so would risk a public backlash that would kill their businesses. Sure its not altruistic - but the fact is that the free market creates a requirement that a corporation acts in a manner that serves the people - or the people won't use that corporation - because someone else will fill the need better. The problem occurs not when a correction takes place - though some see that as a "problem" because they must suffer for their own stupidity - but when a correction is not allowed to take place.

A perfect example is the automotive bailouts. Over 50% of the people I know (a very unscientific poll admittedly) have made the decision that they will never buy any American car but a Ford because of the bailout. Ford refused the bailout money - and their willingness to accept their own responsibility and adapt to the market on their own has raised them well above their competitors.

You make the mistake of associating the current economic climate with a market correction - when it fact the current situation is due to the fact the market has not been able to correct itself. Until that correction occurs, the floor has not been hit yet. Had we let the banks fail - the global economy would likely be in its second quarter of growth - instead we are told to be happy that the contraction is "slowing".

Now - on the matter of scale - I do not ignore it. The principles apply either way. If your a small businessman, with a good reputation in your market, and you risk that reputation and your business on a bad move, then you pay the price. Same thing applies to a large corporation. If it didn't - why would major companies fear things such as product recalls, bad publicity, etc? Bad choices have repercussions - regardless of the size of a community or corporation. The only difference is how the "size" of the risk a small vs large business can accept.

[Snestorm]

@ Captain Haplo

What you say makes perfect sense.

Removing the safety net from the big guys, and letting them fall when cicumstances dictate (just as happens with the small guys), is the only possible fix.

GM sucked a lot of automakers out of business. The cycle should have been allowed to continue by letting them fold, and create an opening for the return of smaller manufacturers. Or, better, sell off some of the companies they have aquired (Chevrolet, Cadilac, Buick, Pontiac, Volvo or Saab, Oldsmobile, and the list goes on), thus re-introducing competition in the auto-industry.

Only when The Big Guy and The Little Guy get the same rulebook is there true free trade.

[Skybird]

Skybird - you don't think companies take risks? You don't think bankers take risks? Had the market been allowed to correct itself - alot of those "fat cat" bankers would be the ones without jobs, and little prospects of getting one in the financial industry - because nobody wants to hire someone who ran a company into the ground to do the same for them.
Companies - even large multinational companies - take risks all the time. In fact, once you get above a certain size, it becomes a matter of balancing one risk against another.

I think the ratio between the two kinds of risks I mentioned is not like oyu describe it. I aloso think that the bigger a companyk the greater it's efforts to avoid risks by lobbying in politics and legislation so that it gets the more what it wants with the lower a risk.

Every business decision is a risk in a free market. Some risk is acceptable - others are not. What your saying is remove the risk - which is tatamount to saying "there is no risk - we guarantee success".
No, that is not what I said, indicated, implied or meant.


Ok - who is going to "guarantee it"? The government? What will they guarantee it with? Oh thats right - they have your and my tax money to do that with. As soon as you move away from a risk/reward system - with all its pitfalls and flaws, you move into a system where a lack of effort, a lack of innovation and a lack of good business practices gains the same as that of its opposite - which means no one has any INCENTIVE to perform beyond the minimal. This creates stagnation.
While again I can only disagree with what you say here, at least we share the opinion that removing incentives is no good idea and kills creativity. But obviously we have totally different views on how to interprete this in reality.

A perfect example is your beloved environment. Do you think those that are researching the "science", pushing the agenda, and actually developing "green" ways to do things, are doing it out of a sense of social consciousness? Or are they getting PAID???? Sure they might want to do "good" - but the vast majority would walk away from it if there wasn't money involved. I don't know anyone who actively wants to avoid "good work" - but its alot easier to get motivated when there is a monetary benefit. Speaking of - who does most of the true development for green solutions? Its those evil corporations - because to fail to do so would risk a public backlash that would kill their businesses. Sure its not altruistic - but the fact is that the free market creates a requirement that a corporation acts in a manner that serves the people - or the people won't use that corporation - because someone else will fill the need better. The problem occurs not when a correction takes place - though some see that as a "problem" because they must suffer for their own stupidity - but when a correction is not allowed to take place.
As I often said and/or indicated before, I am aware of that the academic business sees influence by people pushing their careers by raising their reputation by producing more acadmeic literature - no matter it's quality. the market regulates much business done inside universities, too. However I refuse to accept that paying scientists for doing scientific work, and economic lobbying to distort science, compare to each other, and that just becasue you need money too for maintaining scientificx research, this is something like "lobbiyng of science for it'S own sake". You have raised this comparsion in the other thread already, and I have strongly refused it in that other thread already. If anything is to be learned here, then it is the same like with poltiics. Like legislation and politics need to stay independent from economic interest manipulating htem, science and universities need to stay indepednent in their funding from economic lobbying and business interests as well. People tend to kisss the hand that is feeding them - the more they depend on that hand, the more kissing and licking they do. If you want independent science, fund it well via taxes and keep it free from economical and politic lobbying that way.

I also said in the past, and repeatedly so, that I think the way pro-economy science (=climate scepticism) and the way pro-environment science (=Greens) get distorted and manipulated by funding and lobbying, do not compare, and that the economy spends much, much more funds into trying to cloud scientific research threatening their short-sight profit interest and discrediting independant science. Green lobbying ijn science takes place, yes: but with lesser funds investemted, and with smaller effect.

A perfect example is the automotive bailouts. Over 50% of the people I know (a very unscientific poll admittedly) have made the decision that they will never buy any American car but a Ford because of the bailout. Ford refused the bailout money - and their willingness to accept their own responsibility and adapt to the market on their own has raised them well above their competitors.
Let's wait and see. Solid convictions like this that are motivated by moral indignation tend to not last for long quite often, and when somebody needs a new car for sure but has no money to pay for a Ford but can afford that cheaper model by a carmaker belonging to GM, these iron convictions will be tested. In the end, if you are real in accepting responsibility when buying a car, you cannot afford to buy American alltogether, but would need to pick an Asian or some of the european models. In Green car-tech, others are way ahead of Ford or GM. One of the reasons why GM has kept Opel: technical innovation. If i would need to buy a car and consider fuel consummation and environment, it probably would be a Korean or Japanese car these days.


You make the mistake of associating the current economic climate with a market correction - when it fact the current situation is due to the fact the market has not been able to correct itself. You are not surprised to learn that I do not see it oike oyu describe it.

Until that correction occurs, the floor has not been hit yet.
Agreed. But we draw totally different conclusions from that:

Had we let the banks fail - the global economy would likely be in its second quarter of growth - instead we are told to be happy that the contraction is "slowing".

Actually the banks do business as before, juzst that tetst of the customer advsing have shownt hat they act even more ruthless than before, sell the same critical finance products (I always have problems to think of bank treaties as "products") as before, and the behavior regarding bonusses and playing casino has not chnaged at all. just that they try to keep their reserves better protected by minimising other risks: by not giving credit to small scale private business anymore. Over here this behavior has started to strnagle nthe still fragile economic recovery. I hear and read comments saying the same form america.

The casino already has been opened again. Bonusses are being given again even where total failure has ruled and rules again. And it is the same class of people filling their pockets again.

One cannot argue that this is the price for having a prospering society. It is causing havoc to society.

You allow them the freedom to do so, in the name of non-regulation and free market, what you claim to be a free market at least. I want to see them being stopped - no matter how. Due to the sheer size of the dmaage they are doing to the community interest and community wealth, I have reached a point where I welcome any means and tools, no matter what, to ensure that they get stopped for sure.

That slowly but surely makes me a radical, i think, like i also tend to become more and more detemrined in my resistence and rejection to the EU or grwoing Islamsiation. But that is no surprise. It is the extreme failure on the one end of a spectrum, the excesses done by the one group, that by the law of "action causes reaction" creates the radicalisation on the other end of the spectrum.

And if it is allowed to go on for too long, it ends in a showdown where the number of rifles decide. The phenomenon "Hitler" can be explained that way.

[Snestorm]

You allow them the freedom to do so, in the name of non-regulation and free market, what you claim to be a free market at least. I want to see them being stopped - no matter how. Due to the sheer size of the dmaage they are doing to the community interest and community wealth, I have reached a point where I welcome any means and tools, no matter what, to ensure that they get stopped for sure.

Captain Haplo's view, like mine, does NOT "allow them the freedom to do so".
Our view DOES "allow them the freedom" to fall and fold.

To replace a job with something equal or better, for people at my level is relatively easy.
For a once powerful executive, the same claim can not be made. Most would find themselves at the short end of a stick called reality. The threat of having to live that reality can be a powerful tool for the good of everyone.

[CaptainHaplo]

I totally understand what your saying Skybird - but to use an old American saying - your willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

The reason that the bank fat cats are doing what they are now - which is a continuation of what they were doing that caused the failure - is because as SNES stated - they are not made to play by the same rules.

That is something that can be REFORMED. I have no issue with that. But Soros - in many of his dissertations, calls for the radical solutions - the denial of free enterprise, to correct the problems. This is where you and I differ. I recognize the problems, and fully agree that the system as it is today, is flawed. But what I do not see - in all the radical "solutions" - is something that is better.

You said you want it fixed "no matter the cost". This is remarkably shortsighted of you. As an avid reader, you are aware how such an attitude on a widespread (or national) scale, ends up costing more than you ever realized. A perfect example is the rampant unemployment issue that Adolph Hitler ran on. While many do nothing but blast him, the reality is he put Germany back to work. However, look at the long term costs. Would those who said the thing you did in the early 20's and 30's say it was "worth any cost" in 1946?

We agree that something should be done. We differ on what that should be. So far I have defended at great length a system that I admit has its flaws. So what better alternatives are there than fixing those flaws? Socialism? Communism? Both have proven time and again to be total failures. Individual freedom and a free market offer the best opportunities historically. That doesn't mean they can't be improved. But until I see a better solution, I will continue to instead call for the fixes that will make the system even more equitable.

[Snestorm]

I totally understand what your saying Skybird - but to use an old American saying - your willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

We agree that something should be done. We differ on what that should be. So far I have defended at great length a system that I admit has its flaws. So what better alternatives are there than fixing those flaws? Socialism? Communism? Both have proven time and again to be total failures. Individual freedom and a free market offer the best opportunities historically. That doesn't mean they can't be improved. But until I see a better solution, I will continue to instead call for the fixes that will make the system even more equitable.

We entered our current situation incrementaly, and that is the only available way out without collapsing everything. It can't be done in one stroke.

[Skybird]

I totally understand what your saying Skybird - but to use an old American saying - your willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater.



Haha - we have that saying in German too (originally it is German ;) - and it went through my mind repeatedly when reading you.

That is something that can be REFORMED.


That is one of the great self-deception of yours. It cannot be reformed. It is too powerful, and must not accept to be stripped off its privileges and it's powertools without setting up a fight - in which politics time and agin have shown to be too weak, and lagging behind in time. That is because politics and high finances are in bed with each other.

In anearlier post you agreed when I said we both agree that the problem is who shopuld do the regulations, or the reforms as you call it now. But here oyu already contradict that statement again and say that now it can be reformed. what should it be then, Haplo? could changes been introiduced, or not, and if so, who should be the one instance you would trust to implement them and to invent them in fair, balanced, objective manner?

You said you want it fixed "no matter the cost".
No, that is not what I said, I was saying soething in a very different context. you here quote me with referance to that reforming of ill rules. I said I want a certain group of actors, a professional class of full time trouble makers being withdrawn from influence and the ability to mess up ther world to fill their pockets. That are two very different things, and has two very different perspectives regarding the consequences one accepts (or not), in your case).

Hitler was made possible due to the economic despair germany was allowed to fall into. By the hope and energy he fed to people, he was allowed to secure power. That he would start a holocaust and a world war was not foreseen. and at the morning he announced the strike on Poland, people still believed that the Poles shot first.

that yo9u want to think fgood of your dieas, I fully understand. Nevertheless i think your ideas are ignroing reality, and need to massiveoly gloss over problems in your model as they already have realised in reality, and very much so. By that you declare major causes of the collpase we have jst seen to be be the remdy to prevent a new one. But in fact by following your advise and not adressing certain issues and not regulate things - the next collpse is already being prepared. This is the most absurd thing I could imagine. thgat politics are not independent from this infuential economic thinking, but are part of this game, does not help. Poltiics will not save us, and will achieve nothing - as in a different context Copenhagen just has illustrated. but the minimal if not non-existent substantial changes in regulation of the financial markets or in implementing better - and most important: mandatory - control mechanisms not interfered with by the interested business lobbies - also is clue enough to learn that policy-makers are no longer in power to control things.

What you defend, in principle is the classical economy theory of capitalism, nothiung else. but this thing has brought us to where we are, by allowung the freedom to private egopism to coprrupot the world as much as it is. Somehow you refuse to see that, and always talk of idealistic paradise-like theoretical conditions, that reality unfortunately does not match. we are in a mess, due to that theory in action for a long time.It has massievyl reduced our chances and prospects for long-termed civilisdational survival of out culture. It has massievyl eroded our resource base and environment. It has brought us to where we are today: short moment of shine and glory, bought with sacrificing long termed perspectives and options to really improve life of mankind on this planet. this should make your think but somehow it does not, but you demand to move further ahead in the road to hell: more corrpution, mor welath for fewer people, more explpitation of more poor people who are poor without their mistake.

Different to you i do not claim to have a solution. just thoight experiments, at best. the only thing I know for sure is that your answer - does not function, and has caused us a mess already. Years ago I thought that we still might have a chance to change things for the better, but today i think that we are already beyond the point of no return, both politically and economically and environmentally and psychologically. Things are moving ahead now driven by self dynamic that will druive them ahead for long time even if all of a sudden we would slam into the brakes. So hold on tight - the rollercoaster of climate, economy, resources, politics, demography and environment is racing down in the vertical. Even if you hit the stop-button now, it will race downwards. All we can do is riding this train now, whether we like it or not, and see where we are ending. biologically, we will survive, and even if it takes tens and hundreds of thousands of years, the planet will recover from the current train desaster, like it has often done before. just our global culture, that qulaity that makes us thinking of our race as more than just atribe, but a civilisation - I think this is doomed to constantly detopriate, and finally go to hell.

Not because it was inevitable to end that way, but because we decided for that path.