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