Political Ideologies

[Grimfang999]

You dont need to tell me about that man, Im British myself

I really am not sure whose situation is worse, Americas or ours. But seeing how we have greater dependancy on the banking sector like you said, we are probably fucked. I would say our best solution would be to rebuild our secondary sector and weaken the pound so it is profitable to export again, get some fucking money in.

In fact you will probably enjoy the video, it is talking about that stuff, including the manipulation the banks are using to keep property prices overinflated.

 

[Hydra]

Bailouts for bankers may ease the pain in the short-term, but a truly free market will always perform optimally when nobody is insulated from the consequences of their decisions. Just look at Iceland - they let their banks go broke. New banks took their place, the economy recovered, and a few years later they're recovering rather nicely and the rest of us are all back where we started hoping this doesn't turn into a viscous cycle. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/9550667.stm

 

[Aetius]

Bailouts for bankers may ease the pain in the short-term, but a truly free market will always perform optimally when nobody is insulated from the consequences of their decisions. Just look at Iceland - they let their banks go broke. New banks took their place, the economy recovered, and a few years later they're recovering rather nicely and the rest of us are all back where we started hoping this doesn't turn into a viscous cycle. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/9550667.stm

Iceland could afford the loses because they were a small economy, the closure of the banks would have less of an impact as compared to banks that were intermingled with the entire world.

The United States/UK/Germany/Any large economy would have much more terrible results if the Iceland incident was applied. Now, the size of the "bailouts" themselves are incredibly questionable.

 

[CynicalCirno]

I hate democracy. I don't like having people whose opinions don't match mine in the same government, but... neither do them. It's probably the only thing that keeps freedom at bay, I guess.
As for the political test, "You are a patriotic Social Democrat. 3 percent of the test participators are in the same category and 70 percent are more extremist than you."

 

[Mullerornis]

I'm a socialist through and through, though I don't think I belong in the established doctorines.

 

[rhansen23]

Im a OrdoLiberal I guess? never heard of that before. Anyway, less than 1% of testtakers are the same, and 87% are more extreme than I

 

[ADF]

Iceland could afford the loses because they were a small economy, the closure of the banks would have less of an impact as compared to banks that were intermingled with the entire world.

The United States/UK/Germany/Any large economy would have much more terrible results if the Iceland incident was applied. Now, the size of the "bailouts" themselves are incredibly questionable.

But there is the problem... If you don't allow banks to fail, they exploit it to the utmost extent and still cause significant damage to the economy with their state enabled plundering. Banks pretty much went on a criminal rampage we are still discovering the extent of today; because of their too big to fail status. Never mind the cannibalism of other areas to prop up the banks, such as pensions.

Were as if they are allowed to fail they are forced to be more sensible, because they don't have that safety net when their extremely leveraged bets go sour.

 

[Aetius]

But there is the problem... If you don't allow banks to fail, they exploit it to the utmost extent and still cause significant damage to the economy with their state enabled plundering. Banks pretty much went on a criminal rampage we are still discovering the extent of today; because of their too big to fail status. Never mind the cannibalism of other areas to prop up the banks, such as pensions.

Were as if they are allowed to fail they are forced to be more sensible, because they don't have that safety net when their extremely leveraged bets go sour.

Not letting banks fail =/= letting them run around in a lassize faire world. I never advocated leaving them unregulated, and if they did fail I doubt many of them would have time to think "huh, we gotta act cooler next time" when an economic depression is tearing apart a large country.

 

[ADF]

Not letting banks fail =/= letting them run around in a lassize faire world. I never advocated leaving them unregulated, and if they did fail I doubt many of them would have time to think "huh, we gotta act cooler next time" when an economic depression is tearing apart a large country.

You cannot regulate banks while they have their too big to fail status. Robo signing foreclosure documents, Libor interest rate fraud, laundering Mexican drug money. All of these the banks have been caught doing and no one went to jail and the fines were less than the profits made breaking the law. If the fine for robbing a bank was 3% of the loot, there would be lines going down the street. And there is! Banks are on a criminal rampage because they know they can get away with it.

If you're terrified of causing another banking crisis, then there is nothing you can do to regulate them. Not even being nationalised stopped the banks from breaking the law, because they know the government and regulators are toothless. Without risk capitalism is just looting and all the regulations in the world won't change that.

"Give me control over a nations currency, and I care not who makes its laws"

- Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild

 

[Ricky]

People who hate capitalism are usually the ones who don't like working real hard...

 

[Aetius]

You cannot regulate banks while they have their too big to fail status. Robo signing foreclosure documents, Libor interest rate fraud, laundering Mexican drug money. All of these the banks have been caught doing and no one went to jail and the fines were less than the profits made breaking the law. If the fine for robbing a bank was 3% of the loot, there would be lines going down the street. And there is! Banks are on a criminal rampage because they know they can get away with it.

If you're terrified of causing another banking crisis, then there is nothing you can do to regulate them. Not even being nationalised stopped the banks from breaking the law, because they know the government and regulators are toothless. Without risk capitalism is just looting and all the regulations in the world won't change that.

Yes you can regulate them with keeping them alive, the current Obama administration is just dropping the ball constantly. Just leaving the banks to die is going to FUCK UP the economic situation terribly, and regulating the banks is a greater alternative as you would still have the banks but on a tighter string. The current Obama administration has shown itself to become very craven when dealing with banks and needs to find its balls to regulate them. Yes, regulations work, if they are adequately enforced and with the right amount of transparency, history has shown this to be the case.

Going back to Iceland dealing with banks compared to how a large country like the USA/UK/Germany/Hong Kong should deal with it, if one took an Intermediate Macroeconomics class they would know that comparing small countries to large countries is like comparing apples and oranges. What you do for a small country may not necessarily or not even work for a large country.

"Give me control over a nations currency, and I care not who makes its laws"

- Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild

Rothschilds?

Okay, I know where this is going. For the sake of my sanity I'm done here.

 

[Duality Jack]

I personally think that government should be as pragmatic as possible and leave morality out of it.
"Govern to solve issues of man, not to change the views of man"

 

[ADF]

Yes you can regulate them with keeping them alive, the current Obama administration is just dropping the ball constantly. Just leaving the banks to die is going to FUCK UP the economic situation terribly, and regulating the banks is a greater alternative as you would still have the banks but on a tighter string. The current Obama administration has shown itself to become very craven when dealing with banks and needs to find its balls to regulate them. Yes, regulations work, if they are adequately enforced and with the right amount of transparency, history has shown this to be the case.

Going back to Iceland dealing with banks compared to how a large country like the USA/UK/Germany/Hong Kong should deal with it, if one took an Intermediate Macroeconomics class they would know that comparing small countries to large countries is like comparing apples and oranges. What you do for a small country may not necessarily or not even work for a large country.

Regulations don't work if you remove risk as a factor... Why on Earth would a bank care about any regulations; when governments are willing to trash their own economies in a mad dash to ensure nothing bad ever happens to them? Countries are actually ganging up on each other to ensure the banks are looked after, just look at the Eurozone. If a country cannot print its people into poverty to ensure the banks losses are socialised, loans are force fed to the government to prop up their banking system. Greece is in a artificial great depression imposed on it by other eurozone members, the suicide rate is through the roof and people are living on 500 euros a month. All acceptable, so long as the banks never fail.

They transcend boarders, countries are cannibalising themselves to ensure the bankers never fail; and you think they care about one countries regulations?

There is a point were the damage caused by a crash of the banking system is a lessor of two evils.

 

[Duality Jack]

Regulations don't work if you remove risk as a factor... Why on Earth would a bank care about any regulations; when governments are willing to trash their own economies in a mad dash to ensure nothing bad ever happens to them? Countries are actually ganging up on each other to ensure the banks are looked after, just look at the Eurozone. If a country cannot print its people into poverty to ensure the banks losses are socialised, loans are force fed to the government to prop up their banking system. Greece is in a artificial great depression imposed on it by other eurozone members, the suicide rate is through the roof and people are living on 500 euros a month. All acceptable, so long as the banks never fail.

They transcend boarders, countries are cannibalising themselves to ensure the bankers never fail; and you think they care about one countries regulations?

There is a point were the damage caused by a crash of the banking system is a lessor of two evils.

Here is an idea. How about regulating banks so they must be NPOs.

 

[ADF]

Here is an idea. How about regulating banks so they must be NPOs.

Capitalism and none profit do not mix, capitalism cannot function without the profit incentive. Otherwise where is the motivation to provide goods and services the public need? If you did something silly like ruling a business cannot make a profit in your country, they'd just leave. Which is particularly problematic for the UK, given our political class in their infinite wisdom decided to make London the global centre for banking fraud... And if they left it would leave a giant gaping hole in our economy with little else to fill it. Which is why the UK is the only country in the whole of Europe lobbying against banking regulations, because we're pretty much owned by the banking system.

I'd argue we need to expand into different sectors greatly, but the political class don't particularly care what the peasants have to say. Which we saw the other day with Labour, LibDems and the Tories all arguing over how to prevent the public from having the referendum on Europe they've been demanding for many years. Then they wonder why UKIP got a quarter of the vote in the recent general election. Their usual tactic of screaming "clowns, loonies, fruitcakes and closet racists" at anyone who remotely sympathises with UKIP isn't working as well as it used to, but that isn't stopping the BBC from still pushing that image of course.

 

[Duality Jack]

Capitalism and none profit do not mix, capitalism cannot function without the profit incentive. Otherwise where is the motivation to provide goods and services the public need? If you did something silly like ruling a business cannot make a profit in your country, they'd just leave. Which is particularly problematic for the UK, given our political class in their infinite wisdom decided to make London the global centre for banking fraud... And if they left it would leave a giant gaping hole in our economy with little else to fill it. Which is why the UK is the only country in the whole of Europe lobbying against banking regulations, because we're pretty much owned by the banking system.

I'd argue we need to expand into different sectors greatly, but the political class don't particularly care what the peasants have to say. Which we saw the other day with Labour, LibDems and the Tories all arguing over how to prevent the public from having the referendum on Europe they've been demanding for many years. Then they wonder why UKIP got a quarter of the vote in the recent general election. Their usual tactic of screaming "clowns, loonies, fruitcakes and closet racists" at anyone who remotely sympathises with UKIP isn't working as well as it used to, but that isn't stopping the BBC from still pushing that image of course.

First of all we are not in a capitalistic society, we are in a corporate society, Big difference.

Secondly I'd simply argue that Capitalism or corpratism having full power on an economy is unstable due to creating bubbles which adore to pop.

Thirdly Banks as a Non profit service simply alters where the money goes, less money on bank fees... more money to buying products. The idea is to make money-holders not a source of instability to compensate for the mistakes of other environments and reducing the average debt by reducing the profit in sending out loans, reducing interest.

Growth focused economies are bound to always fail simply because growth is never infinite. So the question is to how to make the growth as sustainable as possible.

 

[ADF]

First of all we are not in a capitalistic society, we are in a corporate society, Big difference.

Secondly I'd simply argue that Capitalism or corpratism having full power on an economy is unstable due to creating bubbles which adore to pop.

Thirdly Banks as a Non profit service simply alters where the money goes, less money on bank fees... more money to buying products. The idea is to make money-holders not a source of instability to compensate for the mistakes of other environments and reducing the average debt by reducing the profit in sending out loans, reducing interest.

If you regulate banks to become none profit organisations, you will have no banks. The government would have to create a nationalised banking service and they're hardly more trustworthy than the banks.

Being owned by the banking system, it's not something that will happen in the UK any time soon. In fact that last couple of banks the government re-privatized were all loss makers, the taxpayer yet again being forced to take a hit for the banking systems benefit.

If the political class weren't tools, there are several ways some control could be brought back to the banking system.

The biggest would be to split up the investment and retail side of banking, so that the gambling side of banking cannot access people's bank deposits. Plus, and this is a biggie. When the investment banks bets blow up, people's deposits are safe. So the bank would be allowed to fail without taking down the entire monetary system. The other significant change would be to increase interest rates to sane levels, which would force banks to look to sound investments rather than using cheap money to make bets on the markets. This would cause some damage to the public in the form of mortgage defaults, but those mortgages were unsustainable in the first place. But the real beneficiary of super low interest rates is the biggest debtor of them all, government. Which is using them to lend itself money at record low rates, which they spend on god knows what; because the public aren't seeing any of it with all these cuts.

Growth focused economies are bound to always fail simply because growth is never infinite. So the question is to how to make the growth as sustainable as possible.

Growth is an inevitability as the population increases. But the primary driver for the need of growth isn't population, it's our money from debt monetary system. Stop creating money as interest bearing debt and you eliminate a significant portion of the need for growth. Though it's easier said than done, it's a fight that has gone on for centuries. America was the most recent attempt to escape this system, but of course it got them in the end when the Fed was established.

 

[Mullerornis]

People who hate capitalism are usually the ones who don't like working real hard...

Funny how I spend 70% of my time working, then.

Might as well say people who dislike socialism are petty sociopaths who care more about themselves than fixing the economy. Or retarded manchildren who only pick what's "edgy", without actually caring about what they want so long as it's "cool", except that they're too cowardly to accept actual edgy stuff like social darwinism.

Go cry me a river, bitch. Once you quit whining about your taxes, come and talk about economics.

 

[Hydra]

Non-profit banks are called credit unions. Good ones are amazing. For the consumer, anyway.

 

[ADF]

Non-profit banks are called credit unions. Good ones are amazing. For the consumer, anyway.

Credit unions were also bailed out, being a credit union doesn't make them any less likely to gamble with high risk assets like sub prime loans. That said while they're typically considered more legitimate than retail banks because they're owned by their members, in the case of the UK; we're too dependant on the retail banks to make such a shift.

 

[JuliusBlitz]

Well said Kodsdu!

 

[Inciatus]

Well said Kodsdu!

What was that in response to?

 

[Digitalpotato]

I usually don't disclose my own political ideologies, simply because there's no way to debate it in a civil manner. (As this thread can even show.)

 

[Grimfang999]

Actually the debate has been pretty civil. Civil does not mean people agree with each other, it just means people argue but dont get violent or personal, which hasnt been the case as of yet.