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 > General Discussion > Karl Marx Was Right?

Karl Marx Was Right?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. ...
  10. 29
  11. 30
  12. 31
  13. All
John Passant has blogged in some depth on the present state of capitalism at this stage of its evolution - and on the pertinence of Roubini's comments.

http://enpassant.com.au/?p=11118
Posted by Poirot, Wednesday, 21 September 2011 7:03:29 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
Poirot, I read Passy's blog and sometimes used to read his articles,
when he preached his philosophies on OLO.

The trouble with his analysis is this. As far as I am aware, under
Keynsian economics the idea is that Govts save in the good times and
then have financial power to spend, if there is a recession.

What has been happening in the last 10 years is that Govts in both
the USA and Europe, have been spending up big on borrowed money,
during the good times, so now the coffers are bare. The only
treasurer who paid off debts and got his house in order was in
fact Costello. Our present treasurer is benefitting from Costellos
achievements, so is the rest of Australia.

Yes, Corporations are sitting on 2 Trillion $. But if Greek
hospitals can't pay the bill for medicines, because Greek politicians
have failed miserably over the years, you can't go and blame
corporations when they stop delivering supplies, as is seemingly
happening now.

What failed is politicians, who clearly disregarded Keynsian
economics, apart from Costello.

Which once again shows that Govts in general cannot be trusted to
manage money. Under Passy's beloved socialism, they would be
managing all of it. Why should I go and support proven failures
Posted by Yabby, Wednesday, 21 September 2011 8:31:32 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
im sick of hearing albert and costello paid off our debt
they sold the family silver..canceled death duties and gave us consumption tax..ie put the tax burden in the main upon the poor..

then we stood out from all the rest
who hold massive debts..because their people dont carry our tazx burdens

but as the saying goes a rising[or falling tide]
raises or sinks all ships...[one of the things i explained to the treasuror and pm rudd...that in the natural course...where currency gets deflated even more by quantitive and qualitive 'easing'..

our debt free status sets us up for the same fall as those who didnt loose their family silver..who arnt burdend with gst..or carbon tax

hence them now spending cash like its going out of style
[which it just might when the world goes into meltdown]

no one mentions that the 3 rd world has boomed
through all this first world boom and bust
mainly because of socialist type principles

ie [a unique thing i know]
but serving its people..not big business
ie by taking back the revenues direct,,not cutting royalties
Posted by one under god, Wednesday, 21 September 2011 9:00:37 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Governments controlled the supply and price of money and money substitutes at all times before, during and after the GFC, and the Great Depression for that matter.

So much for Roubini's and Poirot's theory.
Posted by Peter Hume, Wednesday, 21 September 2011 9:09:30 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
Poirot,

Just to go back to the original story, that 'at some point capitalism can destroy itself.' We wish, I guess. Of course it can. But maybe not. Capitalism is the product of vast resources on the one hand, and a multitude of tiny minds on the other all looking for the next main chance. Perhaps the next few years will be disastrous for many countries and their economies, perhaps most, maybe all, and certainly the Greeks'. But don't be surprised if capitalism, like some indestructible organism in the primeval ooze, mutates into something which climbs out of the mess and gets going again.

The problem for Marx, if he were alive today, is that I don't think he would have any better answers. He probably would have had his best shot in 1848, or during the 1871 Paris Commune, and they didn't go too well. The proletariat has pretty much vanished - at least in Australia - since the sixties, at least as a viably independent political force. Every 'socialist' state has disgraced itself, so what next ?

We can join with the Greens and revel in the inevitable destruction of the world as we know it, or try to plan for a better, constructive future, something better than capitalism, and one hell of a lot better than any of the bullsh!t versions of socialism. No, wait, they WERE genuine, inevitable versions but of a defective theory, and there has to be something better than that too. There's a hell of a lot of nutting-out to do, we can't just rely on 'timeless' credos.

Oops, sorry, 'credo' has more to do with religion, hasn't it ?

And there are no gods. It's just us.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Wednesday, 21 September 2011 11:09:59 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
You'll all have to excuse the fact that I'm not an economics expert and mostly I'm just trying to understand. It seems to me that capitalism is radically unstable and in a permanent state of unrest.

Has capitalism reached a tipping point...by which I mean, is it intrinsically unsuited to human psychology? If so, then it is not sustainable. Are the results of the unleashing of human potential in the last two hundred years more than merely "creative destruction"? Has it advanced humanity in more than a material way and/or is material advancement the sole indicator of success?

Here's an article European sovereign debt - worth a read to grasp the scale of the current problem.

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/banks-banking-GFC-eurozone-Europe-IMF-Lagarde-Jose-pd20110906-LFB8B?OpenDocument&src=spb
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 22 September 2011 7:21:36 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. ...
  10. 29
  11. 30
  12. 31
  13. All

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