molgrips - MemberSome American woman on QT yesterday, not sure who she was, going on about how socialism was a bad idea because it failed in the 70s.
Capitalism failed in the 70s, the 80s, the 90s, the 00s and the 10s soooooo
To try and make Markist / Socialist policies work you have to have a raft of other state controls and new laws. Rent, food, imports, etc all need controls and this means less freedom
It does, yes. And yes, less freedom - but better outcomes for more people. Freedom to let people **** each other over does not make for a happy country.
The real solution is not true socialism or true capitalism of course, it's a halfway house - which is what we have now.
I'd rather have a society with *more* socialism in it and less capitalism. But still some.
In today's world the Marxist model just can't work
I agree. When he was writing society and the economy was completely different.
Capitalism failed in the 70s, the 80s, the 90s, the 00s and the 10s soooooo
Well, that's arguable if it was a failure, because living standards etc improved. If you really want to see how capitalism failed, look at the 19th century. Much of the UK living in horrendous poverty when rich people lived in opulence off the backs of the poor they exploited. It only started to get better when, guess what, more social policies were introduced. More laws, less freedom.
Capitalism failed in the 70s, the 80s, the 90s, the 00s and the 10s soooooo
Wot no smiley?
Much of the UK living in horrendous poverty when rich people lived in opulence off the backs of the poor they exploited. It only started to get better when, guess what, more social policies were introduced.
Actually that is not true at all - its very easy to correlate social policies and standards of living and it does not support this, although the causation may take some work. Arguably the most "equitable" period of the past 150 years co-incided with very limited social policies. The subsequent increase in "social policies" did not sustain this. Inequality worsened back to levels of the last century. So the notion is easy to falsify.
I thought you were you just telling us all off for playing the man a minute ago
Are you able to articulate your point without doing that passive dismissive thing you do which is the epitome of respect?
That's communism. Not the same thing.
Not if you read your Lenin, Marx and Engels is isn't (Socialism is simply the transitory first phase of Communism)
teamhurtmore - MemberWot no smiley?
There's nothing very funny about it tbh. Hang on, I'll give it a go.
[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/25/financial-crisis-caused-500000-extra-cancer-death-according-to-l/ ]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/25/financial-crisis-caused-500000-extra-cancer-death-according-to-l/[/url]
Smiley face!
In which case, we need to understand the causes of the financial crisis properly...
No smiley needed
[but you have a good macro prof among your staff who would be able to help. I can personally recommend him)
Just5minutes
I was under the impression, maybe mistakenly, that during the poverty porn era programming at Ch5 that it was still under Desmond's stewardship
In my defence, i haven't watched TV at home for about 7 years, i wasnt aware Ch5 was finally sold even though i heard it had been floated on the market
Reality check or controversial comments?
It doesn't matter any more, does it? Now in post-truth land the facts are irrelevant. A Jew is vilified for seeking clarity over a definition of anti-semitism and that is claimed to make sense 🙁
It does matter if you are going to suspend someone - or are you too weak to stand up for truth?
Doesn't make sense to ignore the blatant and punish the non-existent either. Good job these boys have no hope of power at the moment. Then it would matter even more.
teamhurtmore - MemberIn which case, we need to understand the causes of the financial crisis properly...
Which of the causes do you imagine aren't a failure of capitalism?
Most of them.....it would be a shorter list to suggest which were
hahahahahaha
Your right capitalism is not boom and bust and the crash was not an inevitable consequences of capitalism... i mean its not like we have seen a bust before and its not like we ever will again 🙄
Crashes within capitalism are inevitable- get a ****ing graph if you disagree or we can discuss this again within the next 20 years - assuming we go that long.
It does matter if you are going to suspend someone - or are you too weak to stand up for truth?
Hmm. I'm wondering what you imagine you're replying to? When I said that the truth doesn't matter, do you read that as meaning that the truth doesn't matter to me? At what point does what I wrote have anything that do with my own weakness or otherwise?
I'd rather boom and bust, than permanaent bust.
But anyway boom and bust will happen in every system its human nature and also the UK doesn't exist in the world alone. For instance plenty of oil producing countries with of all types of political systems are suffering right now.
No dr - my English was sloppy but couldn't be bothered to edit. I was referring to the Labour party.
teamhurtmore - MemberMost of them.....it would be a shorter list to suggest which were
OK so so far you've said "Speak to someone else, they'll explain what I mean" and when asked to identify one, you said "most of them" but couldn't give any examples. We're not really getting any further forward are we?
Ok - state distortion of the housing market and how it is/was funded - a root source
Central Banks flooding economies with liquidity at exactly the wrong time to cover up THEIR past mistakes
Inability to regulate markets and understand leverage
And that is just to start. Sweet FA to do with capitalism.
Interesting question. Seems planned Econimies are immune to some economic cycles:
teamhurtmore - MemberOk - state distortion of the housing market and how it is/was funded - a root source
Central Banks flooding economies with liquidity at exactly the wrong time to cover up THEIR past mistakes
Inability to regulate markets and understand leverage
And that is just to start. Sweet FA to do with capitalism.
All 3 of them failures of capitalism.
No they are not.
Start again - your colleagues in the econs dept will be able to help
Didn't you once work for one of our failed banks - I would have thought you would have better knowledge than most.
Ah, we're back to "Go and get someone else to defend my argument for me", good stuff.
Well you need some help with the basics and they are good guys - I know one of them personally
I think he was rather hoping you would explain the "basics" rather than evade, avoid and patronise.
Why he was this naive I know not. Has he not see what you do on here when asked to explain your views?
Well the dot com boom and bust wouldn't have happened in a planned economy as there would have been no 'dot com' boom in the first place.
But really the financial melt down happened in western mixed economies and there were failings all around by governments, central banks, private companies etc. no one exits in a vacuum.
Capitalism isn't perfect but it is far better than the alternatives.
Northwind, Junkyard,
If you can't see that state regulation isn't capitalism, the US government guaranteeing Fanny Mae and Fanny Mac isn't capitalism and saving failing banks is the antithesis of capitalism, you're in a poor place for ascribing failings in these to capitalism.
And no, I'm not going to spend any time explaining the basics of capitalism to you either.
Gowrie 😀
You might as well play chess with a pigeon
But would it have been better to let the banks fail? (Serious question)
Being able to get to a point where something is too big to fail (regardless of the discussion about whether state rescue should happen) is a problem with capitalism though, isn't it?
But would it have been better to let the banks fail? (Serious question)
Perhaps better is the wrong word, less shitty option from a list of equally shitty options. More like what kind of terminal cancer do you want?
But would it have been better to let the banks fail? (Serious question)
Economies require a functioning banking systems. Banks represent one part of the transmission mechanism that lies between the Central Bank and the Real economy. So there is a key distinction between letting one bank fail (Barings) and seeing a systemic failure of the whole banking system. Arguably Lehmans lay right on the boundary of this distinction!
So the answer, it depends on the risk to the whole system and to the economy.
BTW, this is still a problem as banks are failing to provide this transmission mechanism now which is why the current policy mix isn't working, But that's another issue related to fact that people don't understand the nature of the current slowdown.
Being able to get to a point where something is too big to fail (regardless of the discussion about whether state rescue should happen) is a problem with capitalism though, isn't it?
No, it is a problem of excess leverage (part of which has been encouraged/driven by the heavy hand of the state and central bankers resulting in markets that are anything but free. )
You might as well play chess with a pigeon
I spy abuse creeping in.
If you can't see that state regulation isn't capitalism, the US government guaranteeing Fanny Mae and Fanny Mac isn't capitalism and saving failing banks is the antithesis of capitalism, you're in a poor place for ascribing failings in these to capitalism.
But why were these things needed in a perfect capitalist world?
Doc, you have answered your own question.
They weren't
It isn't
This was just one example of a highly distorted market which led to a catastrophic mispricing of risk and caused severe and lasting damage not only to banks but also to the wider economy. It's the antithesis of capitalism.
BTW don't confuse advice with abuse. Since religion is frowned upon here, I simply referred Gowrie to the secular version of Pv26:4. Feel free to misread that at your leisure, it is Sunday after all.
Were you not telling us all off about not playing the man to Jamby yesterday and i said if it was me then you would goad them on- shall I link to it for you you wee ball of latent impudent hypocrisy ...you really are a pathetic hypocrite THM who is happy to play the man himself whilst telling others off for having a go at his mate who he himself admits talks "baloney"...oh the irony. Best to ignore me as not even you can deny a fact this obvious ...for that we need Jamby SMILEYS GO HEREYou might as well play chess with a pigeon
Why do you do the things you deplore in others on here? I know its not because you lie as well you dont do that but what causes such blatant hypocrisy in you? Is it just lack of moral fortitude?
, I'm not going to spend any time explaining the basics of capitalism to you either.
I am relived as your knowledge base seems rather poor and gloriously one sided.
The fact that capitalism needs regulating is the fault of capitalism
To blame the state for this is like blaming the courts and police for there being criminals.
i see.
Good to hear Doc
But why were these things needed in a perfect capitalist world?
In a perfect world we'd have strung up a few thousand bankers. But we don't live in a perfect world.
No silly it was the regulators fault the bankers went rampant not the bankers- they were the victims of poor regulation.
If we had not attempted to, and failed, to regulate them then obviously everything would have gone very very well.
Are you not listening to the economics lectures from the experts on here?
Teamhurtmore, let them crack on about Capitalism. We need to ensure they are making these arguments at the 2020 General Election
In a perfect world we'd have strung up a few thousand bankers. But we don't live in a perfect worl
We had a long Banker Bashing thread. All of of the following where responsible
Failire of Regulation, particularly to respond to a sustained period of low interest rates = very cheap consumer debt
Failure of some banks / lenders to follow remotely prudent criteria = irresponsible lending (eg HBOS letting mortgage brokers know they NEVER checked files)
Widescale mortgage fraud with people lying on applications in the knowledge the banks never checked them
Far too much borrowing
.. many other factors too
Nothwind et al the European Soverign Debt crises is going to make the Banking/Credit crises of 2007/8 look like a small hiccup
True but e7 needs a clean first - metaphorically speaking!!
Any ex-HBOS employees around?
You might as well play chess with a pigeon
It would certainly be more fun. (apart from the crapping on the board bit, of course)
Avoid the EU thread for a bit - "incoming"..... 😉
Reshuffle starting NOW!
Might be over by Christmas. 😉
Even corbyn can shuffle three cards in a short period of time 😉
WHateverIt would certainly be more fun
The reality is that the market needed regulation
the regulation failed
Whether you wish to blame the regulation or the fact it needs regulation is a point decided largely by your view of a perfect market/capitalism.
An argument can be made either way
IMHO the fact capitalism requires regulation[ investment and "normal" banking being split for example] is a fault in capitalism. the market is not perfect hence it gets regulated. Its so imperfect and the participants so greedy even regulation wont stop boom and bust....though of course it will be everyone fault but the bankers and capitalism when this happens
Still saying this is clearly a very stupid point and you rightly beat the argument with some pretty powerful name calling which THM does not do and object to so strongly; thank the lord he is not a hypocrite who says one thing and does another
😉