M.O; No doubt big finance capital operates in an undemocratic way ; and every major interest in the world is part of it ; because it is a medium of economic and hence political power. And also complementary to a global economy with transnational enterprises. The problem is what is the alternative? To start global finance is inevitable in a global capitalist economy. An autarky is not the answer either. Regardless of whether we like the system - we have to deal with the global economic reality.

In Australia nationalisation of the banks was deemed unconstitutional under Chifley. Still - it could be possible to have public sector banking and finance established again. I'm in favour of that.Problem is what's to prevent such an intervention being undermined from within? And the whole global system is not going to come undone as a consequence of that anyway. (a GFC style collapse is in no-one's interests also)

But I'm all in favour of state aid in support of mutualist and co-operative insurance and banking - to extend it as far as possible - and make it competitive against the private sector as well. Better to build up institutions in competition with the private sector and get an 'economic beach-head' than to bring the whole system crashing down over peoples' heads....

TE: "autarky...global finance is inevitable...deemed unconstitutional... an 'economic beach-head' than to bring the whole system crashing down over peoples' heads...GFC style collapse is in no-one's interests also"

The whole global system IS coming undone anyway because of its inherent stupidity and ideological and motivational foundation of private "self-interest". The combinations of warfare/terror and austerity shows that the only "solution" offered for the undoing is a consistent creep back to fascism.

Who's backing a "GFC"? Well, qui bono? Your system brought that crash about, hence my mention of derivatives. Check the processes around Bear Stearns and Lehman for a start, because your pastiche of dogma looks irrelevant by that very recent history.

And you avoid the debt issue entirely and you avoid entirely that debt bubble's derivatives scam.

So is that the Fabians' "Left" eh, in a nutshell? Going along to get along, don't rock the boat, just keep paddling away in the sinking ship with a different-colored oar (red perhaps, or just faded to pink)

And you counter an argument by claiming to know the results of an alternative system. And you do so by also implying historical precedent that never actually happened. Of course bank nationalization and state leadership gets opposed by private banking oligarchs; sometimes it tempts a coup, or gets national leaders murdered too. That's hardly an argument against it.

Bank nationalization won the War, then won the Peace in reconstruction with what's nicknamed The Marshall Plan, for example.

Whose side are you on ?

Your bosses' debt bubble is killing people off, and not just so obviously as these past few years in Greece - it's a regime of proxy hot and cold wars crippling and destroying civilization.

In favour of State aid, subsidies or whatever is merely obfuscation of being in favour of an "IN crowd". Resources are moved to favoured children, always at a loss to the creators, but this injury is compounded by the insult of the spiraling cost of apparatchiks (nee bureaucrats) who "manage" it. The unintended consequence is poverty created by such massive waste; the Leftie glories of the "Iron Rice Bowl" and the CCCP being ultimate expressions.

The self reverential attitude of such apparatchiks can be seen in Sarah Sea-Patrol's "Ancien Régime" let them eat cake moment of "Tragedies happen, accidents happen"; on hearing of the deaths of hundreds due to actions she helped enact.

M.O; Yes you're right a largely planned economy won the war. There were great gains after the war. We always should have maintained a robust mixture of planning and markets, public and private.

But you accuse me of 'supporting the system'. Well that's just not fair. Long ago socialists posed the question as one of 'socialism or barbarism'. If we just let everything collapse we end up with barbarism if we cannot replace it with something better.

That said I don't agree with the public sector endlessly taking on the debts of private finance on the basis of 'too big to fail'. In that instance there should be nationalisations. And GFC showed we need intervention and regulation. But we cannot create a monopoly of nationalised banking in Australia because of the Constitution. What we can do is provide a beach-head for co-operative and public finance.

Also not all debts are to the ultra-rich. For instance some Greek debt is to other European governments who represent their people. The problem is that austerity is counter-productive. It drives economies into the ground, destroying their ability to sustainably repay debts - and support the world economy through consumption - over the long term. We should be striving for a full employment economy but what the austerity has done in Greece is create a generation of young unemployed with consequences which could reverberate for decades.

I'd also agree with have a big problem with private debt and our ability to sustain the economy over the long term. This has artificially supported consumption for a long time. Better to create efficiencies through a part-socialist economy which reduces waste, instability and cost-structures.

But there's resistance and its difficult to achieve. For example - When we do things like reducing the working week, tax has to go up to maintain existing welfare and services. And people have to live with less consumption power. Even if we redistribute progressively as well.

The question is how to maintain demand and output once we stop surviving on credit. I'd love to hear your ideas.

TM: True, I wasn't “fair”, but I only assessed your affiliation, hence I say “your system” because you're only offering reform at its edges and not, as I advocate, getting some Roundup into its root structure in order that the State survives and thrives. So I'm simply identifying where your loyalties fall once the IMF, BIS etc., read their riot acts and embargo threats to dissenters like the people of Greece, governments of Russia, Indonesia, and various other dissidents, all which those private financier clubs are inclined to do, especially nowadays.

So I'm saying you're wrong and not reading the map of historical and governance options available. I don't blame you, because the merchant bankers' propaganda machine indeed presents us with no such information or dissenting view.

A good example of the above was when Mal Fraser sent a letter to the Financial System Inquiry demanding separation of speculative merchant banking from normal and necessary commercial banking. The speculators' press had to misrepresent Fraser as though he only urged the “ring fencing” nonsense as pushed by window dressers in Wall Street and London since the 2008 Sh1tSt0rm. The people were not even allowed to see such crucial dissent from an ex-PM!

Also, I don't complain that you're being unfair by implying that my “solution” would bring Barbarism, etc. I allege instead that you're simply presuming something that is not the case ie you're wrong on facts. For example, the debt burden on EU states to which you refer all goes back to the same private sources, just like that stupid deal a few years ago when Swan and Hockey pumped a cool couple of billion into toxic RMBS derivatives without so much as an Andrew Robb miracle-sneeze of debate.

Such mechanisms as myself and Fraser advocate are not new: they're classic FDR. But instead, we're denied that modern historical fact and even fed rubbish alleging that FDR's New Deal, Pecora Commission, Glass-Steagall and infrastructure projects all somehow made the Depression worse, as if it was only fascist aggression and criminality which gave FDR the chance to save civilization!

Tristan

Why don't you care that what you are saying is full of self-contradictions? How can you accuse others of thinking they have a monopoly of economic wisdom when you advocate forcing your economic views on others? If that's not a pretended monopoly of economic wisdom, what is?

You haven't answered what the economic calculation argument is, because you don't know. This fact invalidates everything you're saying. The fact you choose to ignore it is no excuse. Your ideology is just a mask for supporting the ruling class to exploit the productive class.

Will your proposed schemes be voluntary, or not? If not, then you support increased inequality and oppression, not less. The fact you refuse to understand this is not excuse. You should care that what you're saying is untrue, not just ignore it.