‘OCCUPY Wall Street’ protestors on Dame Street

EI_Flyboy

Head The Wall wrote: »

I disagree, by supporting this protest he is giving the two fingers to the democratic process. It was also himself that raised the point about him financially contributing and not me, I was just clarifying it.

Protesting shoudn't be allowed in a democracy or is somehow undemocratic...? Besides, our government has repeatedly ignored our democratic decisions at the ballot box and given them two fingers when it's come to Europe and that started with Bruton on Maastricht. The protesters are out there because they feel society has become unfairly imbalanced and that the government has failed in it's duty to insure that didn't happen.

meglome

EI_Flyboy wrote: »

Protesting shoudn't be allowed in a democracy or is somehow undemocratic...? Besides, our government has repeatedly ignored our democratic decisions at the ballot box and given them two fingers when it's come to Europe and that started with Bruton on Maastricht. The protesters are out there because they feel society has become unfairly imbalanced and that the government has failed in it's duty to insure that didn't happen.

I don't get you... how has the government repeatedly ignored our wishes? The government of the day (the one we elected) ran referenda as they legally must on certain issues. We voted no on some initially and after reassurances voted yes. If the people didn't something they would vote no the second time too, very simple. I get the feeling you only think it's democratic then the outcome agrees with your views.

EI_Flyboy

meglome wrote: »

I don't get you... how has the government repeatedly ignored our wishes? The government of the day (the one we elected) ran referenda as they legally must on certain issues. We voted no on some initially and after reassurances voted yes. If the people didn't something they would vote no the second time too, very simple. I get the feeling you only think it's democratic then the outcome agrees with your views.

I happen to be old enough to remember Prodi telling us we could keep on voting on Maastricht until we voted yes. So I'm not alone in believing it's only democratic when the outcome agrees with my views.

cue

meglome wrote: »

We voted no on some initially and after reassurances voted yes. If the people didn't something they would vote no the second time too, very simple.

Human behaviour is very rarely as simple as that. There could be many other reasons for the change in vote.
I find it hard to believe that our country (government, businesses, bankers, the lot of us) is balanced when on the one hand we send an old woman to jail for protesting against a large company that is on her land and on the other hand the people who engaged in some weird kind of economic fraud (which I couldn't even begin to understand) seem to be untouchable and we have to pay for their mistakes and their pensions. There appears to be a lack of simplicity throughout this whole process.

ImRighturWrong

meglome wrote: »

If the people didn't something they would vote no the second time too, very simple. I get the feeling you only think it's democratic then the outcome agrees with your views.

haha the sheeple/people don't know what they're doing half the time, all dumbed down by mainstream media, fluoridation & medication.

There is no democracy when plutocracy governs it.

meglome

ImRighturWrong wrote: »

haha the sheeple/people don't know what they're doing half the time, all dumbed down by mainstream media, fluoridation & medication.

There is no democracy when plutocracy governs it.

Is that when they vote No too? Or is it just when you disagree with the way they vote?

meglome

EI_Flyboy wrote: »

I happen to be old enough to remember Prodi telling us we could keep on voting on Maastricht until we voted yes. So I'm not alone in believing it's only democratic when the outcome agrees with my views.

Come round your house and press gang you in some way did he? And I don't seem to recall there being a second vote on Maastrict. Mixing it up with Nice perhaps?

cue wrote: »

Human behaviour is very rarely as simple as that. There could be many other reasons for the change in vote.
I find it hard to believe that our country (government, businesses, bankers, the lot of us) is balanced when on the one hand we send an old woman to jail for protesting against a large company that is on her land and on the other hand the people who engaged in some weird kind of economic fraud (which I couldn't even begin to understand) seem to be untouchable and we have to pay for their mistakes and their pensions. There appears to be a lack of simplicity throughout this whole process.

I appreciate people vote different ways for all sorts of reasons. For example these are the reasons they voted No to the first Lisbon treaty vote. And hardly a single truthful word on any of them.

hatrickpatrick

Head The Wall wrote: »

What a ridiculous comment to make, do you pay any income tax - probably not. Also you are a student so unless you are paying the full cost of your education (which I doubt) you are actually costing the state more than what your "taxes" contribute to the economy.

So here you are looking for the money being lent to the govt which keeps you in college to be revoked in the misguided notion that you are paying your way via taxes on plastic bags and bags of tayto etc. You really have not got a clue

You're assuming that I've never worked before. You're also assuming my course falls under free fees.
In fact this pretty much follows the entire arc of your argument in this thread so far - making generalized assumptions without actually checking first.
I'm just about done arguing with you to be honest. Being ignorant is annoying, being condescending is annoying, but when you're condescending BECAUSE of your willful ignorance, that's just pathetic.

Scofflaw

EI_Flyboy wrote: »

I happen to be old enough to remember Prodi telling us we could keep on voting on Maastricht until we voted yes. So I'm not alone in believing it's only democratic when the outcome agrees with my views.

That's Nice, not Maastricht, and it doesn't make you very old!

Presumably, like most people who make this complaint, you personally managed to vote No twice, and would have gone on voting No as many times as you were asked. So, again, it seems to be a case of the electorate getting it wrong by your lights as well as by the government's.

amused,
Scofflaw

hatrickpatrick

Head The Wall wrote: »

I could also say that while I spent a few months on the dole I was "paying" tax as I was buying food, petrol and other things etc. I wouldn't say that though as I'm smart enough to see the difference, so yes I will refute his statement that he is paying taxes when overall he is not contributing to the economy at "present".

It's all still tax. It's still going to the government. A huge chunk of it is still going to the banks. Does it really matter whether the tax is coming out of your income or being added on to the price of goods you buy? You're still paying it. I could go cross border shopping and people on Boards would attack me as robbing the exchequer, so if that's a reasonable argument then the flip side is also true that I'm supporting the economy every time I pay tax here.

As a voter he has the right to question (that is if he voted) but he doesn't have a right to question by paying consumption taxes, if that was the case tourists would also have a say in our country but they don't

I am a voter and I've voted in every poll since I was eligible to vote. I wasn't suggesting I had a right to question because of the tax, I'm simply refuting your constant and incredibly stupid argument that only those in full time employment have a right to be activists. Most people I've spoken to at ODS who are genuinely unemployed as opposed to being students are NOT unemployed by choice. Your condescending and bigoted attitude is absolutely unbelievable and to be honest I'm not really bothered debating with you any more if all I'm going to hear is "everyone who protests belongs to X / Y / Z social group which I don't like, ergo the entire protest is invalid". Can't you see how unbelievably ridiculous that is? Imagine if I said "I'm opposing this protest because most of the people there come from the country and I don't like country people", wouldn't you regard that as stupid?

How is it any worse than saying "They all have dreadlocks"?

(For the record I don't have them, I have fairly short hair, but I don't judge people based on their style FFS)

Head The Wall wrote: »

I disagree, by supporting this protest he is giving the two fingers to the democratic process.

Again, HOW?

It was also himself that raised the point about him financially contributing and not me, I was just clarifying it.

I brought that up in response to the barrage of "If you're not in full time employment you don't have a right to protest about anything" garbage. Maybe it wasn't you who was pushing that agenda, but if I hear one more person declaring the protest invalid because there are unemployed people involved in it... Seriously, anyone can fall on hard times, and both those who have lost their jobs AND students who will inherit this country one day have EVERY right to be angry about the way it is being run, they have just as much right to be angry as anyone else. I'm going to be paying the bill for saving a cowboy bank probably for the rest of my life, despite the fact that I had no loans with it, I had no deposits in it, and I had nothing whatsoever to do with getting FF into power. And I will protest against it, because such injustice sickens me.

ImRighturWrong

meglome wrote: »

Is that when they vote No too? Or is it just when you disagree with the way they vote?

voting, shmoting.....as i stated .....the majority of people aren't in control of their own minds.....dumbed down by fluoridation, medication and the mainstream media.

The people simply changed their mind because there was, as usual, a concerted effort made by the mainstream media to disinform and change public opinion............to suit "their" required outcome.

FreudianSlippers

AFAIK the vast majority of VAT receipts are spent on social protection and health and children services. I'm not sure that any of the money is "going to the banks" but I'd have to look at the actual numbers from last year to be sure.

If OWS "Dame St" really want to do something, they should take cuts on their dole, look at the ridiculous amount we're spending on this:

Hayte

meglome wrote: »

I don't get you... how has the government repeatedly ignored our wishes? The government of the day (the one we elected) ran referenda as they legally must on certain issues. We voted no on some initially and after reassurances voted yes. If the people didn't something they would vote no the second time too, very simple. I get the feeling you only think it's democratic then the outcome agrees with your views.

I posted this in politics cafe but its more appropriate here.

The basic idea is that since Reagan, all politics has become about focus group marketing to swing voters and designing policy which is appealing to them. Its about a shift from a needs based culture to a desires based culture to overcome a fundamental problem with mass production (the idea that you can overproduce, or reach a point where everyone has everything they need and will no longer consume). Business has been attuned to this type of thing for a very long time in its understanding of advertising psychology, group psychology and appeal to the irrational instincts of individuals seeking to express or represent themselves. Now politics is kind of the same.

Its part of the reason why New Labour had to trash old policy geared towards community living and start pushing policy that was geared towards individual lifestyles and life choices in order to get elected. At which point, it becomes clear that if you focus group passive consumers of public policy you end up with a melting pot of contradictory ideas which reflects in the kind of doublespeak, u-turning that is pervasive in modern politics. The crucial issue is that a great many people don't care what you do in the name of society and the community as long as they can continue to satisfy their own individual desires. When you can't do that, we go back to this Freudian idea that people are inherently animals. We'll kill each other and treat each other like dogs if we can't have access to things we want (which we sometimes confuse for the things we need).

It takes about 3 hours to build up to that point and goes through the history of mass production, psychoanalysis, group psychology and the development of public relations throughout the 20th century. Its about 4 hours long (4x 1 hour parts) but its well worth watching in its entirety.

Scofflaw

Head The Wall wrote: »

I disagree, by supporting this protest he is giving the two fingers to the democratic process. It was also himself that raised the point about him financially contributing and not me, I was just clarifying it.

I agree and disagree - the protesters, based on what they think of themselves, are doing so, but based on what they're actually doing, they're not.

That is: the protesters think of themselves as democratically legitimate, which is farcical. If their opinion were as strongly represented in the body politic as they like to believe it is or should be (depending on levels of delusion), they wouldn't need to be where they are.

What they are, instead, is an irritant to the body politic - and that is an entirely legitimate and necessary part of democracy.

I think many of us here are arguing with the protesters on the basis of their self-perception, even though we support the general role they're really playing.

cordially,
Scofflaw

EI_Flyboy

Scofflaw wrote: »

That's Nice, not Maastricht, and it doesn't make you very old!

Presumably, like most people who make this complaint, you personally managed to vote No twice, and would have gone on voting No as many times as you were asked. So, again, it seems to be a case of the electorate getting it wrong by your lights as well as by the government's.

amused,
Scofflaw

My apologies, it was the Danes who rejected Maastricht and had to vote again on it. My point still stands that our government and Europe are not big on democratic process. We've had several elections/referenda that have been timed to make it awkward for students to vote. Disenfranchisement by any means is far from amusing.

Scofflaw

EI_Flyboy wrote: »

My apologies, it was the Danes who rejected Maastricht and had to vote again on it. My point still stands that our government and Europe are not big on democratic process. We've had several elections/referenda that have been timed to make it awkward for students to vote. Disenfranchisement by any means is far from amusing.

Not gearing votes to the section of the electorate least likely to exercise their franchise isn't quite disenfranchisement, given that students are entitled to register at their university address rather than their 'home' constituency.

cordially,
Scofflaw

EI_Flyboy

Scofflaw wrote: »

Not gearing votes to the section of the electorate least likely to exercise their franchise isn't quite disenfranchisement, given that students are entitled to register at their university address rather than their 'home' constituency.

cordially,
Scofflaw

So long as it's within the letter of the law, huh? By that rationale gerrymandering, votes for businesses, one vote per household, no vote for women are all perfectly acceptable so long as they're within the law. It's the intent that makes it disenfranchisement. Europe would much prefer if their treaties weren't subject to referenda and right there is your lack of respect for democracy. When an amendment fails to pass by less than 4%, making it awkward for students to vote begins to stink awfully of disenfranchisement. It shows quite a lack of respect for democracy from our government.

meglome

ImRighturWrong wrote: »

voting, shmoting.....as i stated .....the majority of people aren't in control of their own minds.....dumbed down by fluoridation, medication and the mainstream media.

The people simply changed their mind because there was, as usual, a concerted effort made by the mainstream media to disinform and change public opinion............to suit "their" required outcome.

Since the initial No vote on Lisbon was mostly based on things that were not in the treaty at all, but based on the nonsense here. The logical conclusion is there is no point is having the public vote at all.

Also I think you confusing an agenda with using facts that don't agree with your own bias, people like Coir had an agenda as they lied their way through.

Hayte wrote: »

I posted this in politics cafe but its more appropriate here.

The basic idea is that since Reagan, all politics has become about focus group marketing to swing voters and designing policy which is appealing to them. Its about a shift from a needs based culture to a desires based culture to overcome a fundamental problem with mass production (the idea that you can overproduce, or reach a point where everyone has everything they need and will no longer consume). Business has been attuned to this type of thing for a very long time in its understanding of advertising psychology, group psychology and appeal to the irrational instincts of individuals seeking to express or represent themselves. Now politics is kind of the same.

Its part of the reason why New Labour had to trash old policy geared towards community living and start pushing policy that was geared towards individual lifestyles and life choices in order to get elected. At which point, it becomes clear that if you focus group passive consumers of public policy you end up with a melting pot of contradictory ideas which reflects in the kind of doublespeak, u-turning that is pervasive in modern politics. The crucial issue is that a great many people don't care what you do in the name of society and the community as long as they can continue to satisfy their own individual desires. When you can't do that, we go back to this Freudian idea that people are inherently animals. We'll kill each other and treat each other like dogs if we can't have access to things we want (which we sometimes confuse for the things we need).

It takes about 3 hours to build up to that point and goes through the history of mass production, psychoanalysis, group psychology and the development of public relations throughout the 20th century. Its about 4 hours long (4x 1 hour parts) but its well worth watching in its entirety.

Sounds like a thesis on how Fianna Fail won three elections and bankrupted the country in the process.

meglome

EI_Flyboy wrote: »

So long as it's within the letter of the law, huh? By that rationale gerrymandering, votes for businesses, one vote per household, no vote for women are all perfectly acceptable so long as they're within the law. It's the intent that makes it disenfranchisement. Europe would much prefer if their treaties weren't subject to referenda and right there is your lack of respect for democracy. When an amendment fails to pass by less than 4%, making it awkward for students to vote begins to stink awfully of disenfranchisement. It shows quite a lack of respect for democracy from our government.

While I disagree with having elections on Thursdays it's a very minor thing to change your address on the electoral register. It's very difficult to disenfranchise people who for the most part don't bother to vote.

Scofflaw

EI_Flyboy wrote: »

So long as it's within the letter of the law, huh? By that rationale gerrymandering, votes for businesses, one vote per household, no vote for women are all perfectly acceptable so long as they're within the law.

It's the intent that makes it disenfranchisement.

None of them are, though. The government usually runs weekday votes, so a failure to move your vote to somewhere you can exercise it on that basis has to be regarded as largely your own fault.

EI_Flyboy wrote: »

Europe would much prefer if their treaties weren't subject to referenda and right there is your lack of respect for democracy. When an amendment fails to pass by less than 4%, making it awkward for students to vote begins to stink awfully of disenfranchisement. It shows quite a lack of respect for democracy from our government.

Government wants to pass those laws it wants to pass, while the combined governments of the EU want to pass those treaties they've spent time negotiating. Both of them will use whatever room for manoeuvre is available to them within the law to make that happen - that's kind of a given, which is why it's up to the electorate to ensure that the laws bind governments adequately.

I'm sure in theory we could elect a government that is so democratic in temperament that it nobly refuses to avail itself of what the law permits, but I won't be holding my breath.

cordially,
Scofflaw

EI_Flyboy

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'm sure in theory we could elect a government that is so democratic in temperament that it nobly refuses to avail itself of what the law permits, but I won't be holding my breath.

You're right, the idea of getting a representative government free of corruption under current conditions has become a laughable fantasy. This had gotten so far we've ended up with worldwide protest.

So why shouldn't governments be representative of the people and free from corruption...?

Scofflaw

EI_Flyboy wrote: »

You're right, the idea of getting a representative government free of corruption under current conditions has become a laughable fantasy. This had gotten so far we've ended up with worldwide protest.

So why shouldn't governments be representative of the people and free from corruption...?

"Corruption" in the strict sense isn't really the problem, though. Governments pander to private business interests because private businesses provide most of the things that people want.

cordially,
Scofflaw

EI_Flyboy

Scofflaw wrote: »

"Corruption" in the strict sense isn't really the problem, though. Governments pander to private business interests because private businesses provide most of the things that people want.

cordially,
Scofflaw

These private business interests are now providing us with a lot of what we don't want. Debt.

I'm pretty sure if you ask any of the protesters, they'll tell you government corruption is part of the problem. Corruption covers both illegality and incompetence, I don't think anyone can disagree that incompetence played a huge part in getting us into this mess.

So, why shouldn't governments be representative of the people and free from corruption? Is this not something we should reasonably expect?

Scofflaw

EI_Flyboy wrote: »

These private business interests are now providing us with a lot of what we don't want. Debt.

'Debt' is the same as 'credit', which people apparently wanted in lavish quantities, so I don't think that stands up.

EI_Flyboy wrote: »

I'm pretty sure if you ask any of the protesters, they'll tell you government corruption is part of the problem. Corruption covers both illegality and incompetence, I don't think anyone can disagree that incompetence played a huge part in getting us into this mess.

While I certainly agree that incompetence played a huge part in getting us where we are, I don't agree that 'corruption' encompasses incompetence at all.

EI_Flyboy wrote: »

So, why shouldn't governments be representative of the people and free from corruption? Is this not something we should reasonably expect?

Historically, no. I can't think of any examples of government which have been completely free from illegality and incompetence, and which have refrained from using what room they are legally granted to act in to get their way.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PeadarCo

EI_Flyboy wrote: »

These private business interests are now providing us with a lot of what we don't want. Debt.

I'm pretty sure if you ask any of the protesters, they'll tell you government corruption is part of the problem. Corruption covers both illegality and incompetence, I don't think anyone can disagree that incompetence played a huge part in getting us into this mess.

So, why shouldn't governments be representative of the people and free from corruption? Is this not something we should reasonably expect?

The problem is all governments will be incompetent to some degree or other at some time. The problem we have is that they made some very big mistakes but no one makes the correct decision every time. Even the most perfect democracys can make mistakes. As for corruption governments have to weigh up a variety of different interests when making decisions and inevitably at some point one or more interests will get more consideration than they are due.

In answer to your question. Ideally yes governments should be free from incompetence and corruption but in the real world no. Governments are made up of people and those people may not be elected because of credentials as a competent and bias free person. Look at the support Michael Lowery gets. Even though that doesn't mean they shouldn't strive for it but there are limits to how close they will get to that ideal.

Hayte

You assume that the government is doing a bad job and is doing the wrong thing. I would contend that it is doing a good job and the right thing but you are simply not a beneficiary of the policy it enacts. For a small number of wealthy individuals and large corporations, things have never been better. Hell, if you are running a large financial institution in Ireland you can literally drive the entire company into insolvency and the normal rules of bankruptcy don't even apply. Its highly unlikely that you will get sacked and even if you do you will get one hell of a pay day and probably some very senior position in another firm or quasi government agency. You will be essentially immune to criminal prosecution.

So yeah, I'd say the system is working really well. Its just not working really well for you, me, Scofflaw and a hell load of others. But we don't really matter so yeah...

Scofflaw

Hayte wrote: »

You assume that the government is doing a bad job and is doing the wrong thing. I would contend that it is doing a good job and the right thing but you are simply not a beneficiary of the policy it enacts. For a small number of wealthy individuals and large corporations, things have never been better. Hell, if you are running a large financial institution in Ireland you can literally drive the entire company into insolvency and the normal rules of bankruptcy don't even apply. Its highly unlikely that you will get sacked and even if you do you will get one hell of a pay day and probably some very senior position in another firm or quasi government agency. You will be essentially immune to criminal prosecution.

So yeah, I'd say the system is working really well. Its just not working really well for you, me, Scofflaw and a hell load of others. But we don't really matter so yeah...

In turn, though, you assume that the government competently sets out to create a system which protects those people, whereas I would say that the problem is that it incompetently puts itself largely in the hands of, and protects, those people because it believes that they can provide what the public wants - jobs and wealth.

And when the system is working the public doesn't object to the government doing that - far from it, the public admired the golden circle, treated them as if they were some kind of creative geniuses, respectfully envied their lifestyles and helicopters, and aspired to be like them. And looking at the attention paid to the self-styled entrepreneur Sean Gallagher, it seems that a lot of that attitude is still dictating outcomes - it very nearly dictated the outcome of the Presidential election. The public admired the government for being 'business-friendly', and when the European Commission rapped Charlie McCreevy's knuckles for pro-cyclical policies, the Irish public responded with loud derision and a strong belief that the hidebound Europeans were jealous of our dazzling success - our 'miracle economy'.

The problem comes when the idols prove to have feet of clay, as inevitably they must, because the economic system they're idols within runs on a boom-bust cycle, and the less restrained the boom the worse the bust. Then the public wants the idols cast down - but only to erect new idols in their place.

What coherent alternative is there? The hard left have failed, and the soft left have crept into the middle ground, while libertarianism is repugnant to most people. The ideological arguments in the mainstream are about degrees of capitalism, and whether one can best eliminate the cyclical busts of capitalism through taming the booms or through some form of deregulatory snake oil. Where is the new paradigm? Is one even needed?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Bannasidhe

Scofflaw wrote: »

In turn, though, you assume that the government competently sets out to create a system which protects those people, whereas I would say that the problem is that it incompetently puts itself largely in the hands of, and protects, those people because it believes that they can provide what the public wants - jobs and wealth.

And when the system is working the public doesn't object to the government doing that - far from it, the public admired the golden circle, treated them as if they were some kind of creative geniuses, respectfully envied their lifestyles and helicopters, and aspired to be like them. And looking at the attention paid to the self-styled entrepreneur Sean Gallagher, it seems that a lot of that attitude is still dictating outcomes - it very nearly dictated the outcome of the Presidential election. The public admired the government for being 'business-friendly', and when the European Commission rapped Charlie McCreevy's knuckles for pro-cyclical policies, the Irish public responded with loud derision and a strong belief that the hidebound Europeans were jealous of our dazzling success - our 'miracle economy'.

The problem comes when the idols prove to have feet of clay, as inevitably they must, because the economic system they're idols within runs on a boom-bust cycle, and the less restrained the boom the worse the bust. Then the public wants the idols cast down - but only to erect new idols in their place.

What coherent alternative is there? The hard left have failed, and the soft left have crept into the middle ground, while libertarianism is repugnant to most people. The ideological arguments in the mainstream are about degrees of capitalism, and whether one can best eliminate the cyclical busts of capitalism through taming the booms or through some form of deregulatory snake oil. Where is the new paradigm? Is one even needed?

cordially,
Scofflaw

All through history, one subject appears again and again. How to make a lot of money quickly!

The first recorded case in England was that of a State Lottery in 1569. The tickets were on sale at the west door of St. Paul's Cathedral in London. The name of the winner is not recorded.

In 1720 the whole of England became involved with what has since become known as The South Sea Bubble.

In 1720, in return for a loan of £7 million to finance the war against France, the House of Lords passed the South Sea Bill, which allowed the South Sea Company a monopoly in trade with South America. [Note - the 'trade' was the Asiento - or 'right' to trade slaves to Spanish colonies- Bannasidhe]

The company underwrote the English National Debt, which stood at £30 million, on a promise of 5% interest from the Government.

Shares immediately rose to 10 times their value, speculation ran wild and all sorts of companies, some lunatic, some fraudulent or just optimistic were launched.

For example; one company floated was to buy the Irish Bogs, another to manufacture a gun to fire square cannon balls and the most ludicrous of all "For carrying-on an undertaking of great advantage but no-one to know what it is!!" Unbelievably £2000 was invested in this one!

The country went wild, stocks increased in all these and other 'dodgy' schemes, and huge fortunes were made.

Then the 'bubble' in London burst!

The stocks crashed and people all over the country lost all of their money. Porters and ladies maids who had bought their own carriages became destitute almost overnight. The Clergy, Bishops and the Gentry lost their life savings; the whole country suffered a catastrophic loss of money and property.

Suicides became a daily occurrence. The gullible mob whose innate greed had lain behind this mass hysteria for wealth, demanded vengeance. The Postmaster General took poison and his son, who was the Secretary of State, avoided disaster by fortuitously contracting smallpox and died!

The South Sea Company Directors were arrested and their estates forfeited.

There were 462 members of the House of Commons and 112 Peers in the South Sea Company who were involved in the crash.

Frantic bankers thronged the lobbies at Parliament and the Riot Act was read to restore order.

As a result of a Parliamentary inquiry, John Aislabie Chancellor of the Exchequer, and several members of Parliament were expelled in 1721.

King George I also became involved as his two mistresses, the Countess of Darlington and the Duchess of Kendal, were heavily involved in the South Sea Company and were blamed by the populace as being responsible.

When out in her carriage, one of the ladies was jeered by a mob. "Goot people, why do you abuse us? We come for all your goots". (She had a very strong German accent.) A voice from the crowd shouted back "Yes, dam ye, and for all our chattels too!"

Robert Walpole, who had been against the South Sea Company from the beginning, took charge and sorted out this terrible financial mess. He was made Chancellor of Exchequer and he divided the National Debt that had been the South Sea Company into three, between the Bank of England, the Treasury and the Sinking Fund.

The Sinking Fund was made up of a portion of the country's income that was put aside every year, and eventually stability returned to the country.

We read about the South Sea Bubble today and wonder how so many people got involved in such a dubious undertaking.

But it must be said, if something similar was to be launched today, who would not be tempted at the thought of a great deal of easy money!! ……………R.I.P. the virtual dot com bubble.

http://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/England-History/SouthSeaBubble.htm

Mustn't forget the Tulip mania of the 1630s - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania

I would certainly say the paradigm needs to be changed as we are engaging in the same experiment over and over and seem surprised when we get the same results.
As for what that paradigm should be - that is something I believe needs broad discussion.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Bannasidhe

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

How would you define a genuinely free economy?