Should we reform the financial system?
Lets face it, very few people understand the complexities and language of it all, the laws and practices.The most notable effect of the current system, world-wide, would appear to be..the rich get richer, the rest can rot in hell.
As I see it, all these "financial instruments", shelf companies, multiple layers of ownership and administration, etc etc are just there to generate profit, for those at the top, and they serve no useful social purpose.
Corporate citizenship should go, it generates far too many bad decisions, and I can see no real harm in making those who decide accountable for the effects of those decisions.
Banks re-regulated, closely, we've seen where the current system leads now, and it's NOT healthy, for the general population.
Those are just my ideas, and I'm no economist, just a simple bloke who sees a problem, and wants a better world for his kids.

max i agree [the limeted liability was fine while we needed to create wealth[but the wealth in created now[the wealth creation has turned into loot and plunder[conducted by artificial corperations intent now on impoverishing those not under the protections of limited liability

if multinational companies can get liabiliuty [as well as 'human rights as a person[its time persons got limited liability,.as well[we have the absurd situation where an incorperation itself having defaulted can yet make real people homeless

[where money lenders all ready getting ursury and repayment of the primary principle... yet seize the whole cake for a 4000 credit card default..the heights of absurdity

as to who is driving this bus is a person[who does not, cannot ever own a bus, but forever is destined to live in one

Maximillion, men are driving the bus and the Icelandic solution is to turn the keys over to women.

A better solution is to achieve equity between women and men so the driver of whatever gender takes instruction from agreement between women and men.

Corporate management comprising decision-making by agreement between women's and men's committees overseen by governance conducted by agreement between women's and legislatures is the way to a better future for your kids.

Corporations would also achieve the useful social purpose of delivering equality between women and men.

Most thinkers knew these bad times would come.
In fact I believe many think much worse will come one day.
That in fact rampart capitalism will fail.
We can not however forget the growth from the start of the industrial period.
Capitalism and self interest drove that growth.
It too drove the greed and criminal acts that bought the economic crisis.
Without some risk there is no gain.
Credit is the very oil that drives capitalism and growth.
While to much freedom, too little accounting is bad too little is as bad, complex for sure.
No easy answers exist greed theft, crimes against investors must be punished but it is unlikely any time soon.
A criminal, robbing one bank could spend his/her life in prison, ten years at least.
Few who drove this crisis are even going to prison.

Makesamillion,I totally agree with your sentiments.What needs be done is the creation of awareness and get ordinary folk involved in the debate economics and social values.

The financial economy has become detached from the real economy.We have too many parasites feeding off us.What those in power have to realise is,when the host of real productivity dies,so do the parasites.

Maximillion
Bank managers had to be in prison for the curent financial crisis.
Hundrens of millions of labours lost their jobs worldwide, Millions of families will lose their homes, millions of children will be hungry, will stop school, will die from starvasion.
Banks and corporations have wanted more and more money, Only a god knows how many and how big bables they have created and sell them for gold!
We sent to prison a chhild for a chocolate and leave free or award the bank managers because the steal the international wealth, because they demolish the international economy!
Why political parties and governments close their eyes to the banks and bank managers? BECAUSE THEY KNOW THE DIRTIES FROM EACH POLITICAL PARTY AND GOVERNMENT.
Do you know how much cost an election campaign? hundrens of millions of dolars. Do you know how much are the costs from the offices and the staff from political parties? hundrens of millions of dolars.
Who pay this money? where they find all this money? We do not know but the banks know very well and they know and understand from this kind of dirty games, all their life pass with dirty games!
Banks and politicians, hand by hand, redistribute the national wealth in favour of corporations and rich people.
We need a modern, fair, logical financial system, we MUST reform the financial system but who will make the reforms? NO ONE!
POLITICIANS ARE CONTROLED FROM THE BANKS!
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

so what, leave men off the hook again?
men crashed the global economy,
it's men's fault.
the rule of men is entirely to blame, nothing else.
the sooner it gets through to men's stubborn minds
that bossing over women doesn't work,
the sooner this world will come to its senses.
the solution is a women's legislature.

Max
You're really making a habit of this, posting excellent topics that is.
BTW there is no need to be apologetic for not being an economist or not understanding 'secret economists business'.The hard truth is neither do they.
As some one who needed only two more semester length units at uni to be officially an economist would have convinced me that economics isn't a 'soft science' (educated guesses based on 'laws(?)' that are based on non-existent circumstances...i.e. A level playing field.

In truth I find it somewhat ironic that many who shriek against change predicting change (i.e. controls) will bring down the firmament in fiery damnation. Many a prognostication in this area is based on modelling....yet they decry the (in principal) modelling the same when it's applied to AGW claiming it's inaccurate and based on guesses (GIGO) go figure.
Some one once said “if you laid economists end to end you would never come to a conclusion”.

In truth the the difference is that economics as it is practised maintains the Status Quo power elements i.e. the rich V the poor via the erroneous principal that 'might is right' the system will self correct 'silent hand' and all that bull. Where as AGW infers the opposite.

Economists look at history and chose the factors that explain what happened in terms of pre-set assumptions. AGW on the other hand looks at history and tries to predict the future. Personally while AGW is imperfect it is more objective than economics hence my above description.

Of course we need to change the system but will we? I think not this side of a disaster of catastrophic proportions. Self interest or speed is a powerful driving force in some people.
Those who have power want more and will fight by any means to maintain it. One only needs to look at all the double dealing to try and bluff/bulldoze their way through....Enron, One Tell, HIH, FAI, Hardie Industries shenanigans to avoid their responsibilities. Microsoft's power games to squash better products. Big Oil, big Pharma at al.
Need any more proof for change?

Maximillion,
In a democratic environment, in western democracies the bus is drivided by media emperor Rupert Merdoch! He is driving the bus in agnlo Saxon world and in high degree on the whole world!
Do you think withouht his active support Bush could invate to Iraq? Do you think Blair or Howard could support the war in Iraq if they was not covered by media emperor?
Who creates the public opinion? Who control our votes? The emperor who create our opinion and control our votes is the real driver of the bus!
But this emperor use the lies, see lies for Iraq, the emperor cheat and use any way to promote his interests and extend his empire!
Do you remember the war of civilizations, the war between cristians?
This war had big support from Merdoch's empire But in the same time Merdoch improved his business cooperation with Saudi monarchy, the hard core of muslim hardliners, Saudi monarchy'S FAMILY INVESTED Mllions of million dolars on News corporation and Merdoch extended his business into Arab world in cooperastion with thw saudi manarchy family.
Do you remember the war against communist china? Merdoch was the hardliner against China but when china opened the doors to foreing corporations and Merdoch took its stake he forgot the BBC and its fight for human rights in China!
The mass media emperors control our world, they drive our civilization!
Do you know Maximillion, OUR CIVILIZATION IS AMBUSHED FROM CROOCKS AND DIRTY EMPERORS.
Who will clean humanity from all the rubish, from all liers and croocks?
You Maximillion and me and other people like us.
If you do not fight, if i do not fight , if we do not fifgt WHO WILL RELEASE THE CARAVAN OF OUR CIVILIZATION.
LET'S GO WE HAVE NO TIME TO LOSE
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Here are a few quotes..which may explain..at least part of what’s going on financially:

“Whoever controls the volume of money..in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce…And when you realize that the entire system is very easily controlled,..one way or another,..by a few powerful men at the top,..you will not have to be told how periods of inflation and depression originate.”
-President/James Garfield(he was assassinated within 4 months).

“If the people only understood the rank injustice of our Money and Banking system,there would be a revolution before morning.”
-Andrew Jackson

These statements were made during hearings of the House Committee on Banking and Currency,September 30,1941.



Members of the Federal Reserve Board call themselves..“Governors”. Governor Eccles was Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board at the time of these hearings.

Congressman Patman:..“How did you get the money to buy those two billion dollars worth of Government securities in 1933?”

Governor Eccles:“Out of the right to issue credit/money.”

Patman;“And there is nothing behind it,..is there,except our Government’s credit?”

Eccles:“That is what our money system is...If there were no debts in our money system,there wouldn’t be any money.”

Congressman Fletcher:..Chairman Eccles,when do you think there is a possibility of returning to a free and open market,..instead of this pegged and artificially controlled financial market we now have?”

Governor Eccles: “Never,..not in your lifetime or mine.”

“The privileged princes of these new economic dynasties,thirsting for power,..reached out for control over government itself.

They created a new despotism and wrapped it in the robes of legal sanction.…And as a result the average man once more confronts the problem that faced the Minute Man….
-Franklin Roosevelt

“I care not what puppet..(sits on)the throne of England to rule the Empire on which the sun never sets.

The man who controls Britain’s money supply controls the British empire,and I..(when he ran the Bank of England)..control the British money supply.”
-Nathan Rothschild

Caveat:Most..but not all-..of the quotes have been verified as historically accurate.For background on many of the quotes,see this.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FWeb-Debt-Shocking-Sleight-Trapped%2Fdp%2F0979560802&ei=g040Sq29IoWIsgOM0tmwDg&usg=AFQjCNEYyz-7azkefhZE8ns65kY2hFphdQ&sig2=_stsiW3Hig5kHIDVF2dSyg

continued..“[Banks]..do not really pay out loans/from the money they receive as deposits...If they did this,..no additional money would be created...

“You do not have too many workers,..you have..too little money in circulation,..and that which circulates,..all bears the endless burden of unrepayable debt..and usury…

[the Colonial Scrip was issued] with our money..[with no interest owed to anyone.]”
- Benjamin Franklin,..explaining to the British parliament..why the American colonies were prosperous..while Britain experienced rampant unemployment and poverty.

“This is a staggering thought...We are completely dependent on the commercial Banks...Someone has to borrow/every dollar we have in circulation,..cash or credit...If the Banks/create ample synthetic money..we are prosperous;..if not,..we starve.

We are absolutely without a permanent money system...When one gets a complete grasp of the picture,..the tragic absurdity of our hopeless position is almost incredible,..but there it is.

It is the most important subject..intelligent persons..can investigate and reflect upon...It is so important that our present civilization may collapse/unless it becomes widely understood and the defects remedied very soon.”
-Robert Hemphill,Credit manager of Federal Reserve Bank in Atlanta.

“The Founding Fathers of this great land had no difficulty whatsoever understanding the agenda of bankers,..and they frequently referred to them..and their kind as, quote,..‘friends of paper/money.

They hated the Bank of England,..in particular,..and felt that even were we successful in winning our independence..from England and King George,..we could never truly be a nation of freemen,..unless we had an honest money system.

Through ignorance,..but moreover,..because of apathy,a small,but wealthy,..clique of power brokers..have robbed us of our Rights and Liberties,..and we are being raped of our wealth.

We are paying the price..for the near-comatose levels of complacency by our parents,..and only God knows what might become of our children,..should we not work diligently to shake this country from its slumber!

Many a nation has lost its freedom at the end of a gun barrel,but here in America,..we just decided to hand it over voluntarily.

Worse yet,..we paid for the tyranny and usurpation out of our own pockets with..“voluntary”..tax contributions and the use of a debt-laden fiat currency!”.
-Peter Kershaw, author of the 1994 booklet “Economic Solutions”

yes...more..“[It was]..the poverty caused by the bad influence of the English bankers..on the Parliament..which has caused in the colonies hatred of the English and . . . the Revolutionary War.”
-Benjamin Franklin

“There are two ways to conquer/and enslave/a nation...One is by the sword...The other is by debt.”
-John Adams

“The real rulers in Washington are invisible,..and exercise power from behind the scenes.”
-Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter,1952

“I believe that banking institutions..are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies…The issuing power should be taken from the banks..and restored to the Government,..to whom it properly belongs.”
-Thomas Jefferson

“A power has risen up in the government greater than the people themselves,..consisting of many and various powerful interests,..combined in one mass,..and held together by the cohesive power..of the vast surplus..in banks.”
-John.C.Calhoun,Vice President of the United States

“There is an evil which ought to be guarded against..in the indefinite accumulation of property ..from the capacity of holding it in perpetuity by…corporations.

The power of all corporations ought to be limited..in this respect...The growing wealth acquired by them..never fails to be a source of further abuses.”
-James Madison

“Some people think the Federal Reserve/Banks are US government institutions..They are not…..they are private credit monopolies which prey upon the people of the US...for the benefit of themselves and their/foreign and domestic swindlers,..and rich and predatory money lenders.

The sack of the United States..by the Fed is the greatest crime in history...Every effort has been made by the Fed to conceal its powers,..but the truth is the Fed has usurped the government.

It controls everything here and it controls all our foreign relations...It makes and breaks governments at will”.
-Congressman Charles McFadden,Chairman,House Banking and Currency Committee,June 10, 1932

“I have never seen more Senators express discontent with their jobs … we have been accomplices to doing something terrible and unforgivable to this wonderful country…

we have given our children a legacy of bankruptcy...We have defrauded our country to get ourselves elected”.
-John Danforth, Republican Senator from Missouri,..in an interview in The Arizona Republic on April 22, 1992

“The Federal Reserve Bank of New York is eager to enter into close relationship with the Bank for International Settlements….The conclusion is impossible to escape that the State and Treasury Departments are willing to pool the banking system of Europe and America, setting up a world financial power independent of and above the Government of the United States… The United States under present conditions will be transformed from the most active of manufacturing nations into a consuming and importing nation with a balance of trade against it.”
- Congressman McFadden, quoted in the New York Times (June 1930)

What they do when they make loans is to accept promissory notes in exchange for credits to the borrowers’..transaction accounts.”
- 1960s Chicago Federal Reserve Bank booklet entitled..“Modern Money Mechanics”

“The real truth of the matter is that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government since the days of Andrew Jackson.”
- Franklin D Roosevel
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FWeb-Debt-Shocking-Sleight-Trapped%2Fdp%2F0979560802&ei=g040Sq29IoWIsgOM0tmwDg&usg=AFQjCNEYyz-7azkefhZE8ns65kY2hFphdQ&sig2=_stsiW3Hig5kHIDVF2dSyg

I think an answer lies within the question you pose, Maximillion.

>>Should we reform the financial system? Lets face it, very few people understand the complexities and language of it all, the laws and practices.<<

Understanding the mechanics of finance is not difficult. Really it isn't. If you understand how you manage your income, banking, credit cards, mortgage etc. you can gain a fairly complete comprehension of how the whole financial system hangs together.

You can very quickly, just by reading magazine articles, gain an understanding of the logic behind arbitrage, derivatives of various kinds, hedging, even CDSs.

You obviously won't understand how to calculate their value - that's where the esoteric maths comes in - but you will gain an insight into how their mismanagement, not their existence, caused the problems we face today.

The other surprise will be when you discover that the vast majority of these instruments were designed to decrease marketplace risk. The fact that they didn't work as advertised was, again, a management problem.

Think of it this way.

You have a machine that is a bundle of electronics. You then design some fault-detection circuitry that is activated when the machine is not performing properly, and gives you instructions on how to readjust.

Everything works just fine, until it is the fault-detection circuitry that is itself broken...

Not only is the fault invisible to you, but the machine can keep getting further and further out of whack without you realising it. Until the whole thing blows.

Just skim a few articles on the internet, and you will immediately see how the debt/recession/bailout issues are interconnected, and how there simply isn't a guaranteed, textbook solution available.

There certainly isn't a simple one.

It may in the end, after all the excitement of recession is over, we will have learned not to put our faith in complex risk-management "circuitry". Or we may learn how to better manage it.

But it is still far, far too early to assume that to avoid future problems, we have to dismantle and rebuild the entire financial system.

ah ... the male hegemony!
men crash the global economy
and then sit around endlessly twiddling their thumbs
wondering what on earth went wrong
when what is wrong is their own hegemony.
the circuit-breaker is a women's legislature.

The recurring theme in this and other threads is that money comes into
being by the generation of credit/debt in the government/banking system.
Fair enough, but if interest could not be paid then the system would
fall apart. Now, my understanding is that it is growth that enables
the payment of interest out of the growth in the business.

However growth is not dependent on money but energy.
In a time of depletion of energy there will have to be a failure to
pay interest.
This is what happened last year.
In fact, it was also capital that could not be repaid.

In these new circumstances we will have to invent a quite different
financial model.

Bazz
when we speak for economic growth we mean for the growth of the BABLES, which are created from the banks and other businesses around them, this kind of growth is very fast and take people's hope on the sky, at once!
But these bables blow out soon or later (bam!) and bring an other crisis!
The croocks win money not only when we win HOPES BUT even they win more money when we lose our last CENTS!
They are not real smart but divide us and we fight each other instead to fight against the croocks!
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Perecles,
Any system that is based on perspectives (whims, rumour etc.) is unpredictable in the sense that it is reliable.
In truth capitalism has many facets that influence prices of these instruments.
They are all open to abuse/ manipulation etc take for example the currency dealing that is strategically set to influence the market which is not reflected in the fundementals.

in short they are less predictable than the climate. No one can pump the climate it just is.

All these principals are based on a even playing field but each perversion has different effects under different circumstances leading to immeasurable options both in variety and scope.

I favour the fundamentals being set i.e. a clear way of determining the risk /health of a company/corporation. The problem is Audit figures vary from the accounting style used, exclusions etc.

I favour a proportion of super being mandated in government bonds and set so they are not subject to the bull of managed funds. i.e. which average citizen can get up to date reliable figures for all the group investments?

There is risk and then their is RISK. When the most 'reliable'/'less risky' funds made losses what can an average mug punter do? in the case of the CFD disasters.
My mum (84) who took the the least risky option available just enough to cover deeming but the organization took an over all loss and she finished up losing.

have a crack at this!
one bloke's trying to reconcile growth with sustainability.
the next bloke's a preacher.
then there's the bloke whose totally confused,
the dreamer.
blessings reader,
men rule!

I didn't really believe in the existence of parallel universes, whistler, until you joined the forum with your "wimmins legislature" mantra.

But I can't let this pass.

"men crash the global economy and then sit around endlessly twiddling their thumbs"

The global economy is under pressure right now, as a direct result of the over-use of credit, and borrowings in general.

Now I don't know about your universe, but in mine, the "significant spender" of the household is most definitely female.

She decides (or vetoes) all capital expenditure, including the key items such as where we live, when we renovate, when we buy a new car (although I have managed to resist that particular one), when we buy new furniture, when we buy new carpets/curtains/bedsheets/kitchen appliances/lighting etc. etc.

The only items left are unavoidable expenses such as food and petrol, plus the repair or replacement of the vacuum cleaner/washing machine/fridge etc.

When you examine the Pericles' household's contribution to our accumulated debt, my portion pales in comparison to 'er indoors'.

So let's put this canard finally to bed, shall we? And rephrase it as...

"women crash the global economy and then run around endlessly nagging men to do something about it"

Pericles

I don't really 'get' whistler and I do get very irate whenever someone tries on generalisations or stereotypes. As she has done often. But you?

Your post is just appalling.

Mark out of 10:

-5

1. >> 'er indoors' <<

hasn't applied since Howard's halcyon days circa 1950's - and then only to middle and upperclass women who were totally dependent on the largesse of their husbands. Marjority of women have always worked - factories, field, laundries etc.

2. Returning to the 21st century women may well have contributed to the GFC, if so, it was as stock-traders, bankers and realtors wanting feed off a contrived housing market, just like the men-folks.

3. As for women nagging? It is what men do but for men it is called 'delegating'.

If you really believe in what you have written above, I have given you more intelligence than you clearly possess.

Conclusion:

Showed promise,but that's all folks.

Businesses are ONLY interested for the PROFIT, they do not care for you or me, for Adelaide or Australia, the word "my homeland" does not exist for them, exept if they benefit from it. If they find higher profit in China, they will go to china, they do not care at all for the communist ragime or for human rights.! If they have more profits destroying our environment they will destroy it, if they have more profit from the international financial crisis they will do it and they do not care at all for the cost of the crisis on hundrens of millions of people.
Business's rule is very simple TAKE THE RISK AND MAKE MONEY!
Politicians want the power, to govern a country. They know VERY WELL that we, the ordinary people, do not use our brain very often or very well, that we have weak memory and we trust anyone! They know that we do what the mass media tell us(with their way) to do. Because we are so weak, politicians prefer to cooperate with the mass media OUR ROLE AS SITIZENS IS WEAK AND IT BECOME WEAKER AS THE MASS MEDIA PASS TO LESS HANDS (LESS OWNERS).
The owners of the mass media does not care at all for politicians exept if they have money and promised more money or other benefits when they will govern! But politicians are not bilionaires, in realy they have not enouph money for their officces and their personel, they do not have enouph money for the elections camaignes which cost very much. Politicians like it or not, they have to go to the banks!
You can not imagine what means to depend on the banks!
In realy politicians are pawn of the mass media and the banks, NOT BECAUSE THEY WANT IT BUT BECAUSE WE ARE NOT STRONG ENOUPH TO UNDERSTAND AND SUPPORT THEM!
Politicians reflect the quality of the citizens in their country.
It is easier to tell who is not driving the bus, THE CITIZENS than to find who realy is driving the bus.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Thanks for the vote of confidence Fractelle.

>>If you really believe in what you have written above, I have given you more intelligence than you clearly possess.<<

(I always wondered where I got it from..!)

Just think of my theory as being designed to be as credible, meaningful and intelligent as whistler's offerings.

Which of course fully justifies your broadside, and convinces me that I had reached exactly the right level.

Have a great day.

Pericles

">>If you really believe in what you have written above, I have given you more intelligence than you clearly possess.<<"

I knew I should've kept my intelligence to myself.

At least we are agreed that your offering equalled that of Whistler's. However, I have learned not to expect any more from her. But I do expect better from you. There are already enough middle aged men on OLO, whose minds haven't left the 50's (which would explain their arrested development) and who regularly vent their bitterness on any woman with an opinion. Did you really have to add to the chorus?

As a result, I did get to reminiscing just where we ever reach an agreement and realised that field was rather arid; only on religion do we really see eye to eye.

I believe in regulated capitalism, competitive market for innovation and regulation by government to keep the bastards honest. From what I understand you tend to affiliate yourself with Col's XXX rated rampant capitalism. Which also means, congratulations where it is due. Non-reg-Capitalism is in the driver's seat!

I keep pets. You see them as slaves. I believe in ecological diversity - you see saving the natural habitat as a waste of time.

I believe in paid parental leave. I want to see more responsibility from both parents in child raising. You don't.

And you say "tomayto" and I say "tomahto".

Remember when we mentioned the "respect" thing? Well, you can't rest on your laurels.

Have a great day.

Fractelle,:-)
re The tomayto, tomarto bit why not simply quote and do the rest of the song quote. "let's call the whole thing off" (they were singing about arguing)if my tired addled brain cell recalls it correctly.

You're getting sucked into Whistler's rant just don't bite. Wait until they have the guts to run it as a topic. Then debate it...as I probably will try....with some degree of rationality.

Pericles
You naughty boy, me thinks you wrote your piece with tongue in cheek?
Mind you I survived 30 of married life (?) by nodding a lot to the dept of war and finance. ;-)

I do not see the gender issue in this thread.
There is no doubt that there are less women in the decision making end of the financial sector and whether this means women are more honest or just smarter is debatable.
Reform of the financial monster is absolutely needed, that managers can hide behind a corporate structure is out-right criminal and I would suggest this also applies to shareholders, many of whom are ourselves via pension funds, insurance, savings, etc.
Perhaps we are more complicit in this than we all care to admit.
I know there is propaganda about ethical investing, (no weapons manufacturers) but do you know where your super is invested or what investments are propping up your home and content insurance.

Pericles, it is an act of breathtaking cowardice to blame women under male supervision for the failure of a testosterone soaked industry.
did you think no-one would notice?

examinator, there have been several threads on this forum concerning the provision of a women's legislature, most of which can be accessed from this site http://2mf.net, the most recent the inspiration for the most recent post on the site.

Sadly, I have to heed my more temperate advisers on this, and refrain from responding to your nonsense, whistler.

But just for the record.. nah, forget it.

Have a great day too, if you can.

*"women crash the global economy and then run around endlessly nagging men to do something about it"*

ROFL.. hehe.. Fractelle, one thing you don't seem to get is Pericle's
sense of humour.

Besides, he does have a point. Who runs up those huge credit card
bills most of the time?

My first wife had the shopping gene, go shopping to feel better.
What a disaster!

Like my wise old uncle used to say " A man can earn it by the
truckload, a woman can spend it with her little finger".

It was not too much saving that caused the problem, but too much
spending.

misogyny is funny, Yabby?

used to be fair dinkum, authentic, hard-core, psycho misogynists a century ago.
achieving the vote for women was a real challenge.
these days all that's left is your limp-wristed, girlyboy, cream puff, fairy floss variety
who when the crunch comes
in the form of a Referendum on a women's legislature,
will vote exactly how their women folk tell them to vote.
they even tell us so!

Sorry Fractelle, but this is quite droll. I think you and someone else might have taken Pericles' post just a tad seriously.

Whistler - I had a look at your site and I think you should stick to painting. Your writing's nuts.

Whistler, it seems to me that you don't know the meaning of the
word.

You still can't get that chip off your shoulder. I remind you that
when Kevi is out of the country, Julia is running things and one
day she might even take over and run things all the time. A woman
in charge!

Stop living in the past. Reality is now. The world has moved
on.

Examinator

Tomayto shmatyo!

If I had wanted to quote the entire song I would've. NOR have I bought into Whistler's rant. There are better ways of debating Whistler than with tired old misogynistic jokes. Duh! Do I tell you how to write?

I am just fed up with humour at other people's expense. Especially stuff that should've remained buried in the 1950's RSL club from whence it came.

I put up with a lot around here. I post more links to humourous sites than anyone else here. And just this once, because I disagree with you - I am told I am taking this too seriously?

WHAT_THA?

CJ Morgan

YOU took Chaser a little too seriously - In my opinion, but did I get on YOUR case about it?

Pericles

You can do tongue-in-cheek a lot better than the above shtick and you know it.

Yabby

I know you are a misogynistic old goat and don't expect to appreciate that women have had a gut-ful of "take my wife, please" jokes. We long for humour that is actually clever and not straight out of Sam Newman's Joke Book for Irritable Old Men.

As for my comments on the topic - any taker's boys?

Because the neo-capitalists still have their greasy mitts all over the steering wheel - despite GFC.

Or do I only matter when I don't challenge the status-effing-quo?

Finally

Whistler

Separate legislature based on gender would drive the gulf of communication even further apart than it already is. As quite clearly demonstrated by previous posts.

Lighten up and work on a few jokes - we need some real humour around here.

*I know you are a misogynistic old goat*

Ah Fractelle, you misuse the term. Check out what it really means.
Susan Forward wrote a whole book about it and popularised it in
psychology. Do I now call you an old feminazi?

YOU might be sick of female jokes, but they will exist, as do male
jokes, jewish jokes, NZ jokes, Irish jokes etc. I for one, am
amused by peoples foibles, be they male or female. I don't try to
pretend that they don't exist. You need to lighten up dear.

*Non-reg-Capitalism is in the driver's seat!*

Oh there were lots of rules. But the chief law enforcement official
at the SEC, was a little old libararian type of grandma, who simply
did not do her job. If the cops don't enforce the law, there will
be crooks who will thrive. It would be no different, if you took
our police off the streets.

Now an Ernst Spitzer type of law enforcer, would have made a
huge difference! But no, in puritanical America he was sent
to purgatory, for hiring a few hookers.

So Americans got what they voted for, now they pay a heavy price
for electing the Bush regime. That is democracy for you, its not
perfect, but its the best that we have.

Yabby,
In principal I agree to your conclusion re 'un-controlled capitalism'. If not with all the embellishments.
The one major disagreement we have on the subject is that I simply ask why does it have to be the way it is. Especially when it can be improved. Albeit incrementally (with due deference to culturally enhanced human nature, fear of change and "galloping" inertia.

Fractelle and others

Thanks to Fractelle and Max.
After 50+ years the light is now glimmering my PNG literal speak is being often misunderstood/miss-interpreted in Aussie speak.
"Why not..? You should" are intended as a question and suggestion respectively in my lexicon not directives.

PS Fractelle note the times of posts.

Maybe I should make clear that I was not supporting Whistler's campaign, just because I criticised Pericles "humour".

I think separate male and female legislations would be an unmitigated disaster. 'Male and female business' may work well for small hunter-gatherer societies, but not for the huge and more sophisticated urban communities in which we live.

Examinator - I did rather think you were telling me what to do - thank you for explanation.

Was I over reacting to Pericles' humour? No, I don't think so, portraying women as nagging, money grabbing and manipulative was not relevant to Whistler's claims and clearly only humourous to a particular male sub-set.

As someone who has always worked, is buying her own home and would rather gouge out her eyeballs than be dependent on a man for income, I find this type of humour a slap in the face for everything I have worked and stand for. Until now, I have never called Yabby names; he is what he is - I accept that; he not only is stuck in another era (despite claims to the contrary) but given his isolation in W.A. doesn't know many women either.

But Pericles knows better and I note from his response to my last post to him has taken my criticism with grace. Thank you.

On topic - if neo-capitalism is still in the driver's seat, then it is the same as it ever was.

After a short detour into the meaning of comedy - apologies to all - we still haven't really determined a response to Maximillion's question - who's driving the bus?

First of all, it might help if we had some insight into which bit of "neo-capitalism" is "neo"?

It is a term that has been used a few times around here, and has widely different meanings.

Wikipedia says:

"Neo-Capitalism... this economic theory fuses some elements of capitalism with some elements of socialism, mixing elements of each."

Which sounds fairly harmless to me. In fact, probably a "good thing"

However IBWiki disagrees:

"Neocapitalism... states that everything should be made private property (privatized) and the rule of the state should be as minimal as possible. In some circles, Neocapitalism is seen as similar to anarchism<<

I think the latter definition is more "ultra" than "neo", but that's just me.

But Maximillion talks about sophisticated financial instruments that - as he says - "serve no useful social purpose", and about “multiple layers of ownership and administration, etc etc”

It's probably worth pointing out that the system itself - capitalism - is only responsible for the creation of these instruments and institutions, not their misuse or abuse.

Where “multiple layers” are concerned, they tend to be reactions to tax systems, and have little to do with the present financial situation. Complex financial products, on the other hand, most certainly do.

Most of the mysterious financial products were designed - believe it or not - to minimize financial risk for investors (that's everybody with Super, basically).

So, contrary to what Maximillion suggests, complex derivative financial products did, originally, have a "useful social purpose".

The following link is to a useful, relatively jargon-free explanation, as well as an interesting prediction of what we are facing now, made in 2005.

http://www.safehaven.com/article-4096.htm

Should there have been more regulation over these instruments? In hindsight probably yes, but it is genuinely difficult to see what for this regulation should have taken.

Should we continue with “more of the same”?

Only if we still want to manage financial risk.

Peri’, I’d like to ask a couple of things.
The capitalist system didn’t create those instruments, people did, with a clear purpose in mind, to make money, and whether the little investors did mattered not one whit. Why do you differentiate between “the system”, and those who are it, and control it? It isn’t a real thing, it’s in our minds and records, nothing more.
Multiple layering of ownership, yes, it does have to do with tax, the minimization thereof, and the harvesting of fees and payments thereby. Over the decades that amounts to multi-millions the Gov’ has foregone, and we suffer accordingly, and it drains our pockets, affecting how we deal with our own finances, credit etc, sdo I’d say it was connected. Plus it allows a mindset that leads to the more fanciful of the instruments, and their misuse. Very relevant, don’t you think?
As for “Most of the mysterious financial products were designed - believe it or not - to minimize financial risk for investors (that's everybody with Super, basically)”.
Do you think the massive fees and charges taken from the pool were a coincidence, and they would’ve constructed these ornate phantasmagorica if they didn’t get them?
Yeah, right, proper bunch of little Robin Hoods, aren’t they?
I read your tagged article, and it was informative, but my basic question would be..why do we allow any of them, why not insist on the K.I.S.S. principle?
You can justify the development of the current model and practice by referring to historical events, but the real effect is that WE have lost control, and a super-minority of wealth is deciding the course, to their own advantage, as any human would.
I don’t find this satisfactory, and would argue for a massive simplification of all the laws, taxes, and rules, and the dumping of the concept of “Corporate Citizenship”. Make companies what they really are, the people in them, and hold them accountable at all levels, that would seem likely to mitigate most of the corporate corruption and obfuscation

*As someone who has always worked, is buying her own home and would rather gouge out her eyeballs than be dependent on a man for income, I find this type of humour a slap in the face for everything I have worked and stand for.*

Ah Fractelle, but that is just you, a mere one single female. Just
look around you, you do not represent the common female view at all,
just your own personal viewpoint.

Yes, I live in an isolated area, but I still have conact with many
females, just as Australian as you are, who commonly express their
opinions.

They are quite happy with their lot, quite happy to see work as
an optional choice, to be taken up part time, quite happy to focus
on their kids and grandkids, whilst hubby brings in the majority of
the bacon.

There are plenty of mums out there, who are enjoy that morning coffee
with their girlfriends, or a round of golf on Wednesdays, so that they
can all get together and discuss how they feel.

And yes, they run the finances, hubby hands over his cheque each
week, so they spend it as they see fit. You are certainly not a
"typical Australian female".

Max, derivatives matter in the real world. If you are a farmer, you
might want to hedge your crop against price collapse, or currency
swings. If you are an importer, you need certainty about exchange
rates, the list goes on. So they play a role in real business.

What collapsed in the US, was any kind of regulation, due to
political reasons. Australian banks have sailed through the global
economic disaster and a case could be made, that if Costello had
been treasurer in the US, the present global fiasco could have
been avoided. But the public got what they voted for. Bush and
Cheney and the disasaster that they believed in. That is democracy for
you, people get the Govts that which they deserve.

Don't blame the system for that, blame human stupidity.

Hey Max, can I refer you to "the mystery of banking, Rothbard". if you google this link you'll get a free PDF of a very good breakdown of the banking industry.
If you go to page 113 or so, you'll get the historical perspective.
Basically, the silversmiths in England acted as banking warehouses; safe places for people to store heavy metal -gold and silver. Naturally they issued receipts for these deposits. In a very short space of time, people were exchanging the receipts, instead of the actual gold or silver.
Much more convenient.
In an even shorter space of time, the silversmiths worked out that, since no one was actually withdrawing the gold and silver, there was nothing to stop them from issuing more receipts, for more gold and silver than they actually had.
Now, to you or I, this might seem like simple fraud or embezzlement.
You might expect authorities, when discovering this practice, to throw the perpetrators in gaol.
In fact, they said "Holy sh!t, what a great idea! Let's call it fractional banking!"
And so, boys and girls, we have our current system.

True, Maximillion.

>>The capitalist system didn’t create those instruments, people did, with a clear purpose in mind, to make money<<

But if anyone tried the same trick in North Korea, they would very quickly find that the system is in fact the dominant factor.

>>Why do you differentiate between “the system”, and those who are it, and control it?<<

Because the people within any system have their actions shaped by that system.

You wouldn't get very far proposing centralized control of production in a capitalist system, nor would a privately-owned hedge fund get very far under communism.

So my point, that capitalism itself bears the responsibility for the existence of complex financial instruments, still stands.

>>Plus [multiple layering of ownership] allows a mindset that leads to the more fanciful of the instruments, and their misuse. Very relevant, don’t you think?<<

Sorry, I don't see any connection at all between company structures and fancy financial footwork. You'll have to explain that one a little more.

>>Do you think the massive fees and charges taken from the pool were a coincidence, and they would’ve constructed these ornate phantasmagorica if they didn’t get them?<<

No quarrel with that. The problem was the measurement of those fees, which was based upon a totally unrealistic assessment of the underlying value of the service they provided. But I'm still not sure how you would legislate against it, given they weren't doing anything underhand. Just complicated.

>>my basic question would be..why do we allow any [derivative products], why not insist on the K.I.S.S. principle?<<

For the same reason we allow people to take out any kind of insurance.

Sure, they'd be a heck of a lot more careful if they had to pay for their own mistakes, but sharing risk is a pretty fundamental fact of life.

If bankers had to bear all the risk themselves, they'd be a lot more reluctant to lend in the first place.

Which would definitely have prevented the current financial difficulties.

But it's a bit like using abstinence as a contraceptive device.

Effective, but a total waste of resources

Fractelle, most Aborigines in Redfern where I live don't consider that
'male and female business' may work well for small hunter-gatherer societies,
but not for the huge and more sophisticated urban communities in which we live'.