Media discussion of financial crisis dominated by left-wing

Barc66

Hello,

Does anyone else feel like the discussion of the financial and economic crisis in this country is dominated by left-wing viewpoints (when i say left and right wing im speaking purely in a financial sense, not referring to social issues etc)

It seems every media program on telly (and i do watch too much Vincent browne) seems to have some uneducated fuzzy left wing ignorant fool from one of the numerous left wing groups spewing some sob story about how theres some evil 'man' out there trying to get them and reduce their pay/pensions. There does not seem to be a balancing equivalent view point from the fiscally responsible right-wing.

For that matter, how great would it be if this country was run prudently and flexibly like a business. So public spending would be tied to revenue with the aim of achieving balanced budget. Or even if it was run counter-cyclically, so budget surpluses in good times and running small stimulating deficits in bad times.

In such a world pay in public sector would match average pay for equivalent work in private sector. Welfare expenditures would be tied to the OECD average and not allowed to get out of line. Public servants could be hired and fired flexibly like in the private sector, and only promoted based on performance. Striking workers would be in danger of being fired for non-performance (famously Ronald Reagon fired thousands of striking air traffic controllers in the 1980's). Everything would be dictated by the market supervised by prudent regulations.

Does anyone else think we need a new political party/group/movement that reflects these veiws and would strive to make this a reality?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

RichardAnd

Honestly, for any rational person, left and right are just words.

I have right wing views on certain and socialist views on others just as I can be conservative and liberal, depending on the situation. People who identify themselves as far left or far right are often woefully ignorant of the workings of the real world as their heads are too full of ideology.

In reality, nothing is as black and white as left and right, better to tread in the middle.

coco0981

RichardAnd wrote: »

Honestly, for any rational person, left and right are just words.

I have right wing views on certain and socialist views on others just as I can be conservative and liberal, depending on the situation. People who identify themselves as far left or far right are often woefully ignorant of the workings of the real world as their heads are too full of ideology.

In reality, nothing is as black and white as left and right, better to tread in the middle.

My thoughts exactly, people are too hung up with left/right wing divide

ascanbe

No, i think the media discussion on the financial crisis is being dominated by idiots and vested interests of pretty much every political stripe.
Many of the dissenting voices regarding the source of our problems, the implementation of the blanket-bank guarantee/NAMA, came from what would be considered the hard-left in this country.
Many of the loudest supporters of these policies were, and continue, to be those who consider themselves to be capitalist/free-marketeers.
The other dissenting voices, of course, have come from those who truly believe in a free-market and realise that the socialisation of debt/propping up of failed businesses that has occured in this country is the very antithesis of this.
This crisis has made for some strange bed-fellows.

n900guy

Barc66 wrote: »

Hello,

In such a world pay in public sector would match average pay for equivalent work in private sector. Welfare expenditures would be tied to the OECD average and not allowed to get out of line. Public servants could be hired and fired flexibly like in the private sector, and only promoted based on performance. Striking workers would be in danger of being fired for non-performance (famously Ronald Reagon fired thousands of striking air traffic controllers in the 1980's). Everything would be dictated by the market supervised by prudent regulations.

Does anyone else think we need a new political party/group/movement that reflects these veiws and would strive to make this a reality?

So....get abuse and put your life at risk every day as a doctor in AE or a garda, and the reward is the job security of a Starbucks barrista.

People live longer, and healthier, and work harder when they have the security of healthcare, education and childcare, policing.

I think you need to watch Idiocracy. Your ambitions would move the country even further backwards in social development. There is no left wing or right wing - these are simply two groups competing for control over finances. There is what works to help a society, and what doesn't. Is it sucha surprise that the best quality of life, with least working hours but highest provision of public services is in european work-life countries, and not US ones? They also happen to be the richest as well.

irishh_bob

Barc66 wrote: »

Hello,

Does anyone else feel like the discussion of the financial and economic crisis in this country is dominated by left-wing viewpoints (when i say left and right wing im speaking purely in a financial sense, not referring to social issues etc)

It seems every media program on telly (and i do watch too much Vincent browne) seems to have some uneducated fuzzy left wing ignorant fool from one of the numerous left wing groups spewing some sob story about how theres some evil 'man' out there trying to get them and reduce their pay/pensions. There does not seem to be a balancing equivalent view point from the fiscally responsible right-wing.

For that matter, how great would it be if this country was run prudently and flexibly like a business. So public spending would be tied to revenue with the aim of achieving balanced budget. Or even if it was run counter-cyclically, so budget surpluses in good times and running small stimulating deficits in bad times.

In such a world pay in public sector would match average pay for equivalent work in private sector. Welfare expenditures would be tied to the OECD average and not allowed to get out of line. Public servants could be hired and fired flexibly like in the private sector, and only promoted based on performance. Striking workers would be in danger of being fired for non-performance (famously Ronald Reagon fired thousands of striking air traffic controllers in the 1980's). Everything would be dictated by the market supervised by prudent regulations.

Does anyone else think we need a new political party/group/movement that reflects these veiws and would strive to make this a reality?

agreed , if not for a change of scenery , just once , id love to hear the views of a black hearted , unapologetic capitalist pig , ala gordon gekko or mr burns

Valmont

RichardAnd wrote: »

In reality, nothing is as black and white as left and right, better to tread in the middle.

Ah, the mantra of the new left!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

RichardAnd

Valmont wrote: »

Ah, the mantra of the new left!

You don't know anything about me so I'd appreciate it if you didn't label me.

And Permabear, there is no "Irish Middle". Everyone has their own beliefs and you can't generalise like that. I, personally, am a believer in the free market, survival of the fittest and most intelligent that would be favoured by those who claim to be right wing. However, I also believe in fair treatment and a fair wage for employees and that exploitive and dishonest employers should be treated as criminals.

The latter of my views sounds socialist yes? Well that's because it is but does that mean I think we should tax the rich to death and help ourselves to private wealth? Of course I don't. Everyone has there own view on the world, I base mine on what I feel is right and I do my best to live an honest, hard working life.

If in your world, Permabear, that makes me a lefty well then I am a left to you and you.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

RichardAnd

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You have an preponderance for taking extreme views on things. Fair, to me at least, means that the employees work a reasonable number of hours per week, get their two days in seven off as normal, get a wage that is suitable to the position they are in and such things akin. None of these things are unreasonable for any person to ask for from work, hence why I used the word fair.

I'm not in a union nor do I have any affiliation with any political parties from the right or the left. I don't need to label myself as anything because when it comes down to choice, I follow my conscience and my acumen and that has never let me down yet.

ardmacha

It seems every media program on telly (and i do watch too much Vincent browne)

Odd that you watch so much Vincent Browne, you being an investment banker in London (according to yourself).

some of the best-paid police officers and teachers in the world?

As long as general salaries are higher in the economy than other places, then it is reasonable for police officers to have a similar relationship.

hatrickpatrick

Sorry, but "fiscally responsible right wing"?

It was right wing economic policy which got us into this mess. Unregulated capitalism with absolutely no rules or supervision.

SupaNova

o....get abuse and put your life at risk every day as a doctor in AE or a garda, and the reward is the job security of a Starbucks barrista.

I've heard this bull propaganda argument before. There are plenty of more dangerous jobs in private industry. I think farming fishing and construction are all ahead of guards fireman and doctors in terms of risk of death.

Also the argument that healthcare is too important to be left in the hands of private industry, what about food? we have to eat before we can get sick.

20Cent

Sadly Irish media seems to be turning into Fox news type bull. Its a lot easier to dismiss ideas as left or right wing than analyse them. The "wheres Enda" meme just before the election reminded my of the stupid crap American media run with.
Any of the people mentioned in this thread could be portrayed as left or right wing even Richard Boyd Barrett. Permabear mentions Constantin Gurdgiev as right wing but then Gurdiev also calls for bailouts for mortgage holders so that also makes him a lefty.
Truth is everyone is a mixture of both it is not so clear cut and suggesting it is is just lazy journalism.

wiseguy

Barc66 wrote: »

Or even if it was run counter-cyclically, so budget surpluses in good times and running small stimulating deficits in bad times.

You mean like Keynes preached not the current Neo-Keynesian perversion of borrow, spend and socialize!

ascanbe wrote: »

those who truly believe in a free-market and realise that the socialisation of debt/propping up of failed businesses that has occured in this country is the very antithesis of this.

bingo, well said

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

mprgst78

RichardAnd wrote: »

Honestly, for any rational person, left and right are just words.

I have right wing views on certain and socialist views on others just as I can be conservative and liberal, depending on the situation. People who identify themselves as far left or far right are often woefully ignorant of the workings of the real world as their heads are too full of ideology.

In reality, nothing is as black and white as left and right, better to tread in the middle.

In reality, life is largely black and white.

You are either an individualist or a collectivist. There is no middle ground in this regard.

You are the woefully ignorant one if your ideology is based on pragmatism or compromise when it comes to protecting the rights of individuals to their private property or their liberties versus the tyranny of the collective, where our benevolent government ministers and quangos decide how you should live your life.

beeftotheheels

mprgst78 wrote: »

Even a superficial examination of the recession shows that the problems we're experiencing are rooted in government control of the price of money and the ensuing expansionary monetary policy. By manipulating interest rates, politicians create massive unsustainable but temporary booms and the sharp busts are only inevitable, like now, as the market tries to correct the excesses.

Your ignorance is in full view for all to see when you blame "unregulated capitalism".

Seriously? So the sheer scale of the bubble was all to do with monetary policy (led by the right wing Greenspan for the most part by the way) and nothing what so ever to do with failures of the governments to regulate/ curb the excesses of the markets?

The markets fought the good fight against the bubble but in the end they just weren't strong enough, so now we should trust them to sort it out?

I'm not disputing that there were serious issues around monetary policy by the way, but there were also serious issues around regulation. Since Solomons managed to spawn a mini version of the subprime CDO crisis back in the 80s when interest rates were not low I'm going to apportion some blame to regulation (and the fact that we didn't regulate that which had already been problematic in the Savings and Loan crisis).

mprgst78

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Sorry, but "fiscally responsible right wing"?

It was right wing economic policy which got us into this mess. Unregulated capitalism with absolutely no rules or supervision.

Even a superficial examination of the recession shows that the problems we're experiencing are rooted in government control of the price of money and the ensuing expansionary monetary policy. By manipulating interest rates, politicians create massive unsustainable but temporary booms and the sharp busts are only inevitable, like now, as the market tries to correct the excesses.

mprgst78

beeftotheheels wrote: »

Seriously? So the sheer scale of the bubble was all to do with monetary policy (led by the right wing Greenspan for the most part by the way) and nothing what so ever to do with failures of the governments to regulate/ curb the excesses of the markets?

The markets fought the good fight against the bubble but in the end they just weren't strong enough, so now we should trust them to sort it out?

I'm not disputing that there were serious issues around monetary policy by the way, but there were also serious issues around regulation. Since Solomons managed to spawn a mini version of the subprime CDO crisis back in the 80s when interest rates were not low I'm going to apportion some blame to regulation (and the fact that we didn't regulate that which had already been problematic in the Savings and Loan crisis).

I said the problem is rooted in government control of money. Governments can do what they like when they can print and inflate their way through their time in office.

Regulation is no panacea. Look at the SEC. How many thousands of regulators do they employ and how many thousands of regulations are there? It doesn't work! It doesn't prevent bad practice. Regulation is purely reactionary and it only adds on costs to the consumer.

Of course, the law should exist to prevent fraud and anti-competitive practice.

When you have private businesses (banks) guaranteed bailouts if they fail, then you get risky behaviour. This government involvement is as much a part of the problem of their control of the interest rates.

meditraitor

RichardAnd wrote: »

Honestly, for any rational person, left and right are just words.

I have right wing views on certain and socialist views on others just as I can be conservative and liberal, depending on the situation. People who identify themselves as far left or far right are often woefully ignorant of the workings of the real world as their heads are too full of ideology.

In reality, nothing is as black and white as left and right, better to tread in the middle.

Excellent post, for some reason it made me smile.


Any normal person with half a brain will tread the middle ground but for fear of the right or left zealots shouting over the common sense they keep it to themselves.

RichardAnd

mprgst78 wrote: »

In reality, life is largely black and white.

You are either an individualist or a collectivist. There is no middle ground in this regard.

You are the woefully ignorant one if your ideology is based on pragmatism or compromise when it comes to protecting the rights of individuals to their private property or their liberties versus the tyranny of the collective, where our benevolent government ministers and quangos decide how you should live your life.

Nonsense. This human obsession with labeling people is stupid and very outdated. Nothing is black and white and trying to force people into one or the other has cause untold problems throughout history.

I don't identify myself as Liberal, Agnostic, socialist, straight or any of the other names we give to people. You see, humans are not machines. We are complicated creatures and no two of us are totally alike. I've met people very, very similar to me but eventually, we'll come to a subject upon which we utterly disagree.

RichardAnd

mprgst78 wrote: »

So you're a collectivist then?

Yes, I'm a collectivist. If it makes you feel better then why not :rolleyes:

mprgst78

RichardAnd wrote: »

Yes, I'm a collectivist. If it makes you feel better then why not :rolleyes:

But if life is not black and white, how can you define yourself like that?

PS, i deleted my last comment because I misread your post.

beeftotheheels

mprgst78 wrote: »

Regulation is no panacea. Look at the SEC. How many thousands of regulators do they employ and how many thousands of regulations are there? It doesn't work! It doesn't prevent bad practice. Regulation is purely reactionary and it only adds on costs to the consumer.

Of course, the law should exist to prevent fraud and anti-competitive practice.

I think there is a big difference between "it didn't work" and "it doesn't work" because along side lax monetary policy we also had lax regulation.

So if you revert to the Glass-Steagall world and preclude retail banks engaging in investment banking then you negate a lot of the need for moral hazard arguments in relation to non-retail banks. In a world where investment and retail banking live side by side you have to weigh up the consequences of moral hazard against the impact of a retail bank failing.

You are right in that low interest rates and high money supply encouraged financial engineering to generate profits, any time you have laws you will also have loopholes. But it is all about how you phrase the laws.

US rules based accounting standards facilitated Enron happening, had Enron been subject to European GAAP then it could not have kept those entities off balance sheet. We can't say for certain that had e.g. Vodafone been subject to US GAAP they would have done the same as Enron, because they were not subject to US GAAP, they were subject to UK GAAP so that kind of off balance sheet financing was not an option for them.

So this illustrates the problem that we have something tangible to point to when regulation fails (US GAAP and Enron) and nothing tangible to point to when it works - far less dramatic!

RichardAnd

mprgst78 wrote: »

But if life is not black and white, how can you define yourself like that?

PS, i deleted my last comment because I misread your post.

I don't, that post was disingenuous, hence the whimsical smiley = :rolleyes:

namenotavailablE

Can you explain why Hong Kong, ranked as the most economically free nation in the world by the Wall Street Journal and Heritage Foundation's Index of Economic Freedom, has not suffered a fate similar to Ireland's?

Hong Kong has had its downturns (both the Asia Crisis and SARS had negative impacts on the region) but I'd reckon that a combination of the very strong economic links with mainland China and the underpinning of Hong Kong businesses by Beijing's financial strength must both be big factors in the capacity of the region to weather those events.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

mprgst78

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Excellent post; really well put.

pog it

Barc66 wrote: »

Does anyone else think we need a new political party/group/movement that reflects these veiws and would strive to make this a reality?

Absolutely and I've said on another thread that there is nobody representing those of us who want fairness and this country run in such a way as you described. My ideal party would go further. It would be doing what Morgan Kelly suggested, but with just 10% of people saying they in favour of Kelly's strategy, and by the time the party would be up and running, it would be too late and too much of a minority party with only 10% potential for votes anyway.
So there you have it. We are screwed. FG and co must be beside themselves (wait they are:rolleyes:)

beeftotheheels

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Taking an extreme example of a failure to regulate does not negate either the need for, nor the benefits of, regulation.

Regulation is not the demon of this piece, the failure to regulate is, and that being the case I am not remotely convinced that the only way forward is giving the markets free reign to inflate and burst divil the consequences.

Having regulations and actually applying those regulations provides us with a less severe alternative unless you are convinced that Irish people are incapable of being regulated?

mprgst78

beeftotheheels wrote: »

Taking an extreme example of a failure to regulate does not negate either the need for, nor the benefits of, regulation.

Regulation is not the demon of this piece, the failure to regulate is, and that being the case I am not remotely convinced that the only way forward is giving the markets free reign to inflate and burst divil the consequences.

Having regulations and actually applying those regulations provides us with a less severe alternative unless you are convinced that Irish people are incapable of being regulated?

Why do proponents of regulation always say that the answer to the repeated failure of regulation is more regulation?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

SupaNova

Why do proponents of regulation always say that the answer to the repeated failure of regulation is more regulation?

And who regulates the regulators?

beeftotheheels

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I never suggested that cheap credit was not a big part of the problem, or that tighter control of monetary policy is not part of the solution.

I simply said that it is not all of the problem, and thus cannot be all of the solution.

I'm not in favor of handing boy racers the keys to souped up Honda CR-Zs but neither do I think that if I don't hand out the keys there will be no Honda CR-Zs. The reality is that we live in a global economy and the pricing of money supply is relative (as we can see from the Icelandic experiment).

So, if the boy racer gets his hands on a CR-Z do I think that the boy racer should be subject to speed limits? Yes.

If speeding is a problem due to the preponderance of imported CR-Zs in the hands of boy racers should the Gardaí be given more resources to police the application of speed limits? Yes

If they apply the law rigorously do they need to follow around every CR-Z? No, because the CR-Z owners should come to the conclusion that there is a significant risk that if they break the speed limit they will get caught and thus moderate their behavior.

It is not, and in a global economy cannot, be an either or position. It requires both in the same way that fiscal policy could have been used in Ireland to counteract cheap money supply but was not.

mprgst78

beeftotheheels wrote: »

I never suggested that cheap credit was not a big part of the problem, or that tighter control of monetary policy is not part of the solution.

I simply said that it is not all of the problem, and thus cannot be all of the solution.

I'm not in favor of handing boy racers the keys to souped up Honda CR-Zs but neither do I think that if I don't hand out the keys there will be no Honda CR-Zs. The reality is that we live in a global economy and the pricing of money supply is relative (as we can see from the Icelandic experiment).

So, if the boy racer gets his hands on a CR-Z do I think that the boy racer should be subject to speed limits? Yes.

If speeding is a problem due to the preponderance of imported CR-Zs in the hands of boy racers should the Gardaí be given more resources to police the application of speed limits? Yes

If they apply the law rigorously do they need to follow around every CR-Z? No, because the CR-Z owners should come to the conclusion that there is a significant risk that if they break the speed limit they will get caught and thus moderate their behavior.

It is not, and in a global economy cannot, be an either or position. It requires both in the same way that fiscal policy could have been used in Ireland to counteract cheap money supply but was not.

The argument is still being made that the repeated failure of regulation is caused by not enough regulation.

In this case you say that "more resources" for the Gardai is the answer. Do you mean you want a garda for every boy racer?

In other words, should every business transaction be approved by a regulator before it can be made?

What is your principle? I'm trying to understand your way of thinking?

beeftotheheels

mprgst78 wrote: »

The argument is still being made that the repeated failure of regulation is caused by not enough regulation.

In this case you say that "more resources" for the Gardai is the answer. Do you mean you want a garda for every boy racer?

In other words, should every business transaction be approved by a regulator before it can be made?

What is your principle? I'm trying to understand your way of thinking?

What is your alternative?

Say we had our own currency and central bank tomorrow and they priced Irish money supply at 8% which was appropriate to the Irish economy. But Japan has an interest rate of <1% which is appropriate to the Japanese economy.

So, bearing in mind that exchange rates do not by any stretch of the imagination exactly mirror the respective interest rates, what is to stop Irish banks borrowing in yen and lending in Punts?

We can control our interest rate, we can control our money supply, but we cannot actually control the impact of that on our economy.

If we regulate our banks, and regulate them properly, then that regulation combined with the control over monetary policy will have a bigger impact on both our banks and our economy.

The bigger point is that you will note from my example I used the Punt because in the world we currently inhabit our interest rate and monetary supply is governed from Frankfurt so we don't actually have control of our monetary policy. Does this justify throwing our hands up and exclaiming that there is nothing we can do in terms of managing our economy or does this necessitate us using other tools from fiscal policy to effective regulation to retain control.

No, we do not need a Garda for every boy racer or anything like it. When the boy racer speeds he is breaking the law whether caught or not. But he is young, stupid and reckless so he may take the chance.

If a bank breaks the law there are consequences, and those consequences should be sufficient to disincentivize any law breaking. The bank, unlike the boy racer, has an obligation to act in the best interests of its shareholders and so should price the risk properly.

I'm struggling to understand the your view.

It strikes me that it must either be that we should not regulate anything other than interest rates and money supply which by definition we can only control internally unless we depart the EU and shut down our economy from external influence, or

That money supply should be controlled globally?

I can't say that I'm in favor of either, but if there is an alternative then please tell me.

20Cent

Ideologies left and right will always claim every victory for their ideas while also claiming that the failures are not left/right enough so not relevant. There is a reason why extremes always fail and the most successful countries are pragmatic.
Ideologues are alway hypocrites anyway you will never get a right winger who would turn down a public ambulance if they are injured or a lefty who would turn down a nice nixer or a pay rise.

mprgst78

beeftotheheels wrote: »

What is your alternative?

Say we had our own currency and central bank tomorrow and they priced Irish money supply at 8% which was appropriate to the Irish economy. But Japan has an interest rate of <1% which is appropriate to the Japanese economy.

So, bearing in mind that exchange rates do not by any stretch of the imagination exactly mirror the respective interest rates, what is to stop Irish banks borrowing in yen and lending in Punts?

We can control our interest rate, we can control our money supply, but we cannot actually control the impact of that on our economy.

If we regulate our banks, and regulate them properly, then that regulation combined with the control over monetary policy will have a bigger impact on both our banks and our economy.

The bigger point is that you will note from my example I used the Punt because in the world we currently inhabit our interest rate and monetary supply is governed from Frankfurt so we don't actually have control of our monetary policy. Does this justify throwing our hands up and exclaiming that there is nothing we can do in terms of managing our economy or does this necessitate us using other tools from fiscal policy to effective regulation to retain control.

No, we do not need a Garda for every boy racer or anything like it. When the boy racer speeds he is breaking the law whether caught or not. But he is young, stupid and reckless so he may take the chance.

If a bank breaks the law there are consequences, and those consequences should be sufficient to disincentivize any law breaking. The bank, unlike the boy racer, has an obligation to act in the best interests of its shareholders and so should price the risk properly.

I'm struggling to understand the your view.

It strikes me that it must either be that we should not regulate anything other than interest rates and money supply which by definition we can only control internally unless we depart the EU and shut down our economy from external influence, or

That money supply should be controlled globally?

I can't say that I'm in favor of either, but if there is an alternative then please tell me.

My view is get the government the f**k out of the economy. Politicians should not have control of the interest rates. The market will coordinate a rate based on the savings of consumers in private banks.

If banks mess up, they should fail. The prospect of failure is enough to encourage prudent practice. No need for all the BS regulations that make business more expensive for everyone.

Central banking must be ended. Take the power out of the hands of politicians and special interest groups and disperse it through to the market where millions of individuals decide on a daily basis.

mprgst78

20Cent wrote: »

Ideologies left and right will always claim every victory for their ideas while also claiming that the failures are not left/right enough so not relevant. There is a reason why extremes always fail and the most successful countries are pragmatic.
Ideologues are alway hypocrites anyway you will never get a right winger who would turn down a public ambulance if they are injured or a lefty who would turn down a nice nixer or a pay rise.

I respectfully suggest that you read more about different ideologies before you start denigrating them.
A "right winger" is not typically an anarchist and believes in some limited role for govt (and your ambulance in your eg).

The most successful countries have historically had free market capitalistic economies with a strong focus on the superiority of the rights of the individual over the collective. E.g. America 19th Cent, Hong Kong, Britain 19th Cent, Sweden early 20th Cent (before the socialists took control).

Mediocre economies with high levels of debt and government spending seem to be the best examples of your pragmatic utopia.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

RichardAnd

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

And the middle ground is also the place where you will find people who don't make up their mind on something until they understand the issue at hand. Staying with a belief regardless of how unpopular it will make you is something I greatly admire and my own views on many things never change without good reason. But also, is it not a folly to hold to a belief if it becomes clear that it is wrong?

beeftotheheels

mprgst78 wrote: »

My view is get the government the f**k out of the economy.

But that is larger than just banks.

Should the government stop regulating insurers and other financial institutions?

Should the government stop taxing businesses and commercial transactions?

Should the government stop imposing laws on businesses which restrict what they do from pollution through to the use of slave labour?

Should the government abolish companies since the existence of limited liability companies (a construct of the law) is based on governmental intervention in businesses (albeit to facilitate rather than discourage) and itself can facilitate the mispricing of risk?

If we abolish companies then we don't need to abolish accounting standards because no companies will exist to be subject to them.

I'm really not seeing this ending as well as you seem to think it should.

mprgst78

beeftotheheels wrote: »

But that is larger than just banks.

Should the government stop regulating insurers and other financial institutions?

Should the government stop taxing businesses and commercial transactions?

Should the government stop imposing laws on businesses which restrict what they do from pollution through to the use of slave labour?

Should the government abolish companies since the existence of limited liability companies (a construct of the law) is based on governmental intervention in businesses (albeit to facilitate rather than discourage) and itself can facilitate the mispricing of risk?

If we abolish companies then we don't need to abolish accounting standards because no companies will exist to be subject to them.

I'm really not seeing this ending as well as you seem to think it should.

Honestly, I do not have the time to give your questions the explanations they deserve. Pick up "Capitalism and Freedom" by Milton Friedman (but avoid his chapter on monetary policy, on which he later in his life changed his views). Read any of Ron Paul's books or Peter Schiff, or any Austrian Economics material. I'd also stop believing everything written in newspapers or big media news sources.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

meditraitor

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The ability to believe one thing today and another tomorrow is not in any way iresolute as you so incorrectly point out, its an ability of open minded common sense.
The ignorance of arguing a point of view to prevent previous opinions being shown in an incorrect light is more arrogance than steadfast and this is the stance of always left or always right!

No governance in history has been 100% succesful, only the ones that straddle the middle ground have proven to be sustainable.

The suggestion that the media are left leaning has no more truth to it than the possibilty of you admitting you are wrong.

mprgst78

meditraitor wrote: »

No governance in history has been 100% succesful, only the ones that straddle the middle ground have proven to be sustainable. .

Which countries are you referring to?

What does "sustainable" mean to you?

hatrickpatrick

mprgst78 wrote: »

Even a superficial examination of the recession shows that the problems we're experiencing are rooted in government control of the price of money and the ensuing expansionary monetary policy. By manipulating interest rates, politicians create massive unsustainable but temporary booms and the sharp busts are only inevitable, like now, as the market tries to correct the excesses.

Allowing banks to do whatever they want with no checks and no regulation is very much a right wing policy.
It was this policy which allowed the subprime crisis to develop in the United States, and it was this same policy here which allowed a housing bubble to develop and be fuelled by the banks. The government's job is to regulate such situations and they did not do so.

Deregulation was always a call coming from the right. Always.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.