The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Fundamentals of capitalist economic life > Comments

Fundamentals of capitalist economic life : Comments

By Peter Gilchrist, published 10/12/2008

Now is a good time to examine the corpse of the unregulated market.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
Q&A

As I said earlier, why has this not been effect in Australia, where bank (as lenders) requires 25% deposit or mortgage insurance. There is no non-recourse loan. There is no free refinancing

This is commercial, this is market forces at work, which does not cause people to lose money

In your scenario, you thinks greedy people wnats to .... lose money

If I am an investor, I would want it proven to me 99% that I will make money, that is greed, losing money is not greed.

The blame lies in the Government policy, it is time you start reading and not just basing everything on what you think.
Posted by dovif2, Friday, 12 December 2008 8:39:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
examinator: contrary to your assumption, I have no questions about the phenomenon except this: why does the debt-spreading derivatives market continue to escape proper scrutiny, especially in light of its causal role in this disintegration?

On that point, Stiglitz is one of the slimiest commentators: he mentions parts of the real problem (apparently in order to seem credible), but then backs practically every bail-out scheme and other heist in direct contrast to the simple neo-Darwinian "principle" these free-trade gurus push! And in this bail-out robbery context, Stiglitz's "we are all Keynesians now" is just more filth. He speaks only for himself and his degenerate oligarchy.

"The derivatives weren't regulated because Greenspan thought that reputations would keep it in line". It seems you wrote this in response to my comment on another thread i.e., '“unregulated financial capital can lead to catastrophe”. Again, the derivatives bubble of funny money is itself a catastrophe. If it had been regulated, maybe we could have had a more regulated catastrophe?' (see: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8268)

So I dismiss the notion that such fakery and fraud can be somehow usefully "regulated". Think: how to regulate a 20 megaton thermonuclear blast? You do not regulate such crime: you put the perpetrators in prison, or more usefully in a chain gang, with their bankrupt usurer entities in bankruptcy. That last point is a truism, but constantly avoided in this regime of corrupt, stupid pigs.

Remember too that Sir Greenspan is still at it, only now as adviser to ex-British Treasury string-puller Gordon Brown. Greenspan is clearly a liar, so the idea that "reputations would keep it [derivatives] in line" is ridiculous distraction anyway, as Greenspan no doubt intended.

Your point is important about the derivatives being UNPAYABLE; that is why I keep referring to the "quadrillions" figure. I keep reminding people of this essential fact, because it is the most emphatic factual condemnation of this bail-out lunacy. This massive fascist-corporatist scam is being perpetrated in public, only lately being dressed up as Keynesian or otherwise pseudo-socialist. But then Keynes was on record as a eugenicist nutter, so no surprises really.
Posted by mil-observer, Friday, 12 December 2008 12:42:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mil-observer
By definition, people backing bail-outs are not 'free trade'. You are blaming capitalism for govermental policies that are anti-capitalist.
Posted by Diocletian, Friday, 12 December 2008 2:17:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oliver “The other side to protecting, say GM in the US is; protection makes it harder to reward succesful Japanese captalists owning Toyota. “

Wholly agree…
Q why are the Japanese car makers not experiencing the same pain as the US makers?
A some call it ‘responding to the market’ and ‘business planning’.

Senior Victorian “and then let the market work its magic.”
Exactly
(rather than pretend that government can ‘regulate’ for consumer preference)

Examinator “Have you seen the 'fora' dicussion I referred to in a general discussion topic including Arthur Stiglitz, Hernando de Soto discussing the sub prime/derivatives markets?”

No, I would appreciate seeing though.

Re derivatives and free markets

I am not sure what the implication of “free market” is in the manner you are using it.
I always understood the Chicago grains market was considered as close to a “perfect market”, where no buyer and no seller controlled the price and did not need regulating.
Certainly, for centuries, markets existed without regulation.

What I believe when someone is trading what I understand as “derivatives”
is that the freer it is, the more one relies on the honesty of the other participants (Greenspan’s “theory of reputation”?).

Historically, this could have been true (but the “affirmative action“ folk would have called such a reliance on “reputation” the very thing which excluded some from participation and would have legislated against it).

dovif2 “Q &A

Why don't you bring some facts and logic”

“Q&A” and “Facts and Logic” is a bit of an oxymoron.

“Unrestrained greed and rabid consumerism are the cause.”

Sounds like a blame-card for the innovatively challenged.

Maybe we should ban consumers, that will fix the “rabid consumerism” and AGW , two birds with one stone.

And “Next you'll say it was all Clinton's doing, or the Oz Labor crew”

Krudd and Co are giving 2 million “consumer families” (targeted because they were seen as the least likely to save the money) a pre-Xmas bonus this week .

What does that tell you?.

Maybe Q&A can “Show me the Logic”.

Diocletian post above is right on the money
Posted by Col Rouge, Friday, 12 December 2008 2:28:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Diocletian: "By definition, people backing bail-outs are not 'free trade'. You are blaming capitalism for governmental policies that are anti-capitalist."

I'm sure George W Bush would be 'interested' in your take on things.

_____

Col

I agree with you ... we could kill two birds with one stone.

Environmental, ecological and economic sustainability is difficult to achieve (as is now so patently obvious), especially for the “innovatively (sic) challenged”, like you say.

What do you suggest the fix might be ... socialism by stealth?

Your dinner guest list sounds great – have a good Xmas.
Posted by Q&A, Friday, 12 December 2008 4:51:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
dio, you say I "blame capitalism" but I did no such thing. Rather, you confuse "free trade" mythology with "capitalism"! You should be embarrassed on that point alone, but you dug yourself a canyon after that. Your other assertions are demonstrably wrong in theory and practice where you claim that "people backing bailouts are not 'free trade'", then referring to "governmental policies".

First, the main backers of free trade AND instigators of bail outs are free-trade bosses from such outfits as Goldman Sachs (Paulson and Turnbull the most obvious) and JP Morgan Chase. The corrupt mainstream parties are merely gutless hoes doing the bidding of such mega-usurers (and reassuring themselves that they will thereby avoid the "stick" of terrorist attacks too).

Now, the ongoing case of Citigroup and Citibank is a useful insight into 'free trade' and 'competition' in practice. An opportunistic oligopoly around JP Morgan, HSBC and even Rupert Murdoch has been doing all it can to talk Citi down, whereas Citi has been in several respects even less exposed than themselves. But these are predatory, imperialist carnivores, slavering after their pig-outs on Bear, Lehman, and WaMu, for example. Now they smell even more bail-out loot!

It's the same with Goldman's appointee Paulson directing the heists: that is a logical consequence of 'free trade' mythology, whereby such acquisitive expansion into the public/government realm is deemed proof of the free-trade entities' neo-Darwinian 'fitness'. Of course, it's just fatness, actually, and an anti-democratic, feudalist and criminal mentality, but these guys consider themselves above and beyond such common understanding.

Secondly, as my above points indicate by reminder, its is a very creative distortion to claim "governmental policies" as driving the bail-outs! Who do you think Paulson represents again?

No hard feelings though dio: just pray to goddess Ayn Rand and ask her to wave her magic invisible hand over you. You might get better.
Posted by mil-observer, Friday, 12 December 2008 4:59:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy