When we went off the gold standard in the early sixties,the world reserve banks started to create fiat money like there was no tomorrow.So now this enormous bubble of no worth,that is sitting there hidden in share values,property values and is no way representative of the true productive worth of our economies.

We are facing total economic collapse.The central Banks are doing exactly what they did during the great depression of 1930's.Presently the scammers are getting or Govts to borrow for stimulus while the banking system increases interest rates ,siphoning this money back to the big end of town to prop up the phoney money.The result will be ,the loss of jobs and production.Poverty will prevail and Govts will opt for war to distract the masses from their anger as we have seen in Greece.

History does repeat itself.

Arjay, spot on mate. its ruling elites from both the loony, left & the raving, right that is behind this.

Yes Geoff Davies, i would like to see you answer Peter Hume's 2 questions some time soon?

Pericles, an excellent half truth as usual. just what i would expect from the loony, left.

News flash, 2 wrongs don't make a right. Who exactly was conspiring with the "international banksters" to introduce an ETS, Economic Treason Scam?

Answer, your colleagues in the red/green/getup/labour coalition.

Geoff Davies, your 2 recent comments appear on the surface to be quite reasonable but are still based on furphys. There is no false dichotomy between socialism/capitalism. Communist, Anarchist, Socialist, Fauxmanista isms have all been proven to be total failures repeatedly for almost a century now.

Australia was spectacularly successful between 1945 & the mid 1960's. Starting in the mid 60's, there were changes in our culture, that were introduced by radical, extreme, loony, left, Fundies.

Primary schools in that time did not "cope" with class sizes of 45 children, but produced excellent results for both boys & girls. What happened? Perhaps this will explain it for you.

http://www.savethemales.ca/160303.html

If your isms are about, "Total Co-operation" why did loony, left fundies start the "gender wars", create racial tension with "multiculturalism", create poverty with both of the above which has left OZ with an ever expanding welfare dependent underclass & welfare/social talker industry to maintain poverty.

Pelican, you & suzeonline are sounding more fair, reasonable, sensible every time you read one of my comments & pretend that you haven't.

The "reds under the beds" is not a mentality but a fact of life. The cold war was not a dream but quite real. Ever since the 1930's, the reds sought to infiltrate every influential area of western culture, not just in America but in OZ as well. Their subversive purpose was to "white ant it from within" as Gareth Evans once said. He even managed to infiltrate the Australian Democrats. Try this.

http://www.savethemales.ca/031001.html

A nice pretend-huff, Peter Hume, so that you can avoid addressing the point, as usual.

>>Ho-hum. Pericles trying to by run the argument into personal remarks and assuming what is in issue again. Three strikes and you’re out Pericles.<<

But you could regain a little credibility if you would care to explain how "waste, incompetence and destructiveness" created by government, differs from "waste, incompetence and destructiveness" created by private enterprise.

Especially when the latter has to be bailed out with taxpayers' money.

Should you be unable to do so, the point you were making so vehemently, kinda falls flat, don't you think?

Talking of credibility, it doesn't help your cause to collect a fan club of "reds under the beds" paranoids.

>>Pericles, an excellent half truth as usual. just what i would expect from the loony, left.<<

Coming from Formersnag, who can write this stuff with, apparently, a straight face...

>>If your isms are about, "Total Co-operation" why did loony, left fundies start the "gender wars", create racial tension with "multiculturalism", create poverty with both of the above which has left OZ with an ever expanding welfare dependent underclass & welfare/social talker industry to maintain poverty.<<

...that has to be a compliment.

Pericles
Unless you are going to argue that full socialism is viable, then it is common ground that full socialism is not viable.

That being so, the onus is on the partial socialists, the interventionists, to show how partial government intervention is economically different from total government intervention, apart from by the existence of the private sector.

Unless you or any interventionist can show how and why partial government intervention is any less incapable of economic calculation than full socialism – apart from by the existence of the private sector - then you have made no case for me or anyone else to answer.

Pointing out the problems you have pointed out, does not establish whether these problems are *because of* or *despite* government interventions.

Thus you have assumed what is in issue twice in the one post.

Strike two, Pericles.

Geoff
You disavow full socialism - why?

Formersnag,

I studied Nazi Germany 40 years ago and have maintained an interest in the period ever since, but the first time I had ever heard any suggestion that Hitler was a socialist or left-wing was very recent indeed – on the Andrew Bolt Forum. The word “socialist” in the party’s name was as meaningful as the word “democratic” in the name of the German Democratic Republic. The left wing of the party was destroyed in the Night of the Long Knives. Hitler allied himself with the old conservative right-wing nationalist party. He did not nationalise industry. He made no pretence that mankind was qual. He was racist and nationalistic.

Remember that the terms “right” and “left” come for the French National Assembly of more than 200 years ago. The supporters of the king, the established authority in a most unequal state, sat on the right of the chamber; those who wanted more democracy and equality sat on the left. The right are the supporters of authority and inequality. The left are the supporters of freedom and equality. Now, both sides have their extremists, but the legitimate debate is around the middle and looks at how you balance of competing principles.

There has been a modern attempt to redefine those terms, but it makes no sense.

The DLP was also a centre left or social democratic party. In fact, the DLP was more left wing on economic matters and IR than the current ALP is. So by tour classification system, it needs to be bunged in with the Liberals, Labor, Nationals, Greens and reds as “Fabian Socialist”. Once you put so many parties in the one class, you really lose the ability to discriminate sensibly.

That's two neat sidesteps, Peter Hume. Much more and it could be described as dancing.

>>Pointing out the problems you have pointed out, does not establish whether these problems are *because of* or *despite* government interventions.<<

I still couldn't spot the answer to my request for clarification.

I'll try it again, even though I am beginning to suspect it may be a question that for some reason holds some terrors for you.

I asked if you would care to explain how "waste, incompetence and destructiveness" created by government, differs from "waste, incompetence and destructiveness" created by private enterprise.

Any chance of a response, or do you intend to keep on ignoring it?