savagegoose

video the fall of Australia

75 posts in this topic

Thanks for sharing. One for all the socialists.

So the GFC was a failure of socialism?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well the socialist garuntee of bank housing loans to people who cant afford houses. remember we socialized the losses of the bank, but not the profits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well the socialist garuntee of bank housing loans to people who cant afford houses. remember we socialized the losses of the bank, but not the profits.

Funny, that all occurred under George W Bush's watch. Not a renowned socialist. Neo-con free marketeer as far as I knew. Similarly the UK conservative government's policy of supplying easier credit to risky debtors belies the idea that socialists are somehow responsible for the current ills. Capitalism is running out of options. I'm not defending socialism per se. But to blame socialism for the failures of capitalism is nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well maybe corporate and state need to be separated. seems them coming up with plans together only causes trouble.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well maybe corporate and state need to be separated. seems them coming up with plans together only causes trouble.

Alas SG the corporations insist upon more control over the state rather than less. Witness the miners ad campaign rolling a sitting prime minister. Sure Gillard capitalised. But we all knew where the impetus came from. This country is ruled by vested interests. It barely matters what you or I think.

Just look at the Institute of Public Affairs 70th birthday dinner.

Gina Rinehart taking over fairfax and the ten network and demanding that journalists name their sources. (Thankfully she has recently lost this case)

What happened to freedom of the press?

Rupert Murdoch was there too (Illegal tapping of murder victims phones)

This guy couldn't give a flying f*ck about press freedom.

The IPA is the same organisation that claims to represent "freedom".

The only thing that will save democracy is press freedom. It's as simple as that.

Labors press regulation legislation is no better BTW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny, that all occurred under George W Bush's watch. Not a renowned socialist. Neo-con free marketeer as far as I knew. Similarly the UK conservative government's policy of supplying easier credit to risky debtors belies the idea that socialists are somehow responsible for the current ills. Capitalism is running out of options. I'm not defending socialism per se. But to blame socialism for the failures of capitalism is nonsense.

When the too-big-to-fail banks were bailed out by the Fed, that is hardly capitalism. It is socialising the banks losses amongst the taxpayers. What we have now is corruption at high levels. I'd start by funding elections from the public purse to stop vested interests controlling governments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When the too-big-to-fail banks were bailed out by the Fed, that is hardly capitalism. It is socialising the banks losses amongst the taxpayers. What we have now is corruption at high levels. I'd start by funding elections from the public purse to stop vested interests controlling governments.

This is still not a failure of socialism. Capitalism allowed the vested interests to gain the power over governments in the first place. To the point where they were able to socialise the losses. I agree 100% that private funding of political parties should be heavily regulated. Capitalism has the same flaws as Socialism in terms of the eventual concentration of power that evolves. The only way I can see to prevent it is regulation. There are a lot of "think tanks" out there that continually argue against regulation. IMHO they represent the same vested interests that seek to benefit from a lack of regulation that leads to such events as the socialisation of bank losses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that this has nothing to do with Socialism at all.

I also believe that the current system has failed. Corruption, high level corruption is the rule. For sure it's not in your face, hand over a pineapple (Australian $50 note) to the Policeman or get a ticket type corruption. It's more "we can't find any evidence of collusion in Petrol pricing", "Yeah I'm Premier and yeah I holidayed in a Mansion owned by the CEO of a major government contractor for free. But we're friends outside of taxpayer funded billion dollar infrastructure projects"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also believe that the current system has failed. Corruption, high level corruption is the rule. For sure it's not in your face, hand over a pineapple (Australian $50 note) to the Policeman or get a ticket type corruption. It's more "we can't find any evidence of collusion in Petrol pricing", "Yeah I'm Premier and yeah I holidayed in a Mansion owned by the CEO of a major government contractor for free. But we're friends outside of taxpayer funded billion dollar infrastructure projects"

It's a far worse type of corruption than once-off cash-based payments. It's built into the system processes of everyday human life: elections, recruitment, promotions, remuneration assessments, equity management by boards of directors, distribution of taxpayer funds, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a far worse type of corruption than once-off cash-based payments. It's built into the system processes of everyday human life: elections, recruitment, promotions, remuneration assessments, equity management by boards of directors, distribution of taxpayer funds, etc.

Has there ever been a system of once-off cash-based payments?

Capitalist corruption, in my opinion, is way less than the communist corruption (where I managed to buy military uniforms etc when I was in leningrad in '88) but oddly capitalist corruption seems to be way worse then democratic socialist corruption (in Norway, Sweden etc it is laughably absent).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has there ever been a system of once-off cash-based payments?

Capitalist corruption, in my opinion, is way less than the communist corruption (where I managed to buy military uniforms etc when I was in leningrad in '88) but oddly capitalist corruption seems to be way worse then democratic socialist corruption (in Norway, Sweden etc it is laughably absent).

At least a state like NSW has an organisation like the ICAC to deal with corruption at the government level. I doubt Putin has to deal with such organisations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I forgot to add that the system even caters for creating and running pretend corruption fighting organisations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has there ever been a system of once-off cash-based payments?

Travel a bit further east next time you're in Europe. They're called "gifts".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[/size]

Travel a bit further east next time you're in Europe. They're called "gifts".

Just a standard way of 'doing business'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how about no corporate sponsorship, and personal donations not tax deductible. votes are accrued on a Personal net tax $ = votes,. that way the people with the most skin in the fame get to decide the results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how about no corporate sponsorship, and personal donations not tax deductible. votes are accrued on a Personal net tax $ = votes,. that way the people with the most skin in the fame get to decide the results.

I'll bet Gina would be keen on your plan SG. :D Everyone in society has skin in the game. The wealthy have money as well. My own scheme of higher IQ providing increased voting power is no doubt subject to the same problems. I afraid we're stuck with an equal vote for everyonetm*

*Except the wealthy who can buy influence with politicians

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the GFC was a failure of socialism?

Free marketers see the GFC as a failusre of socialism

While our socialist brothers see it as a failure of capitalism.

Both are wrong, but neither let the facts get in the way of their opinions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The GFC was a result of the failure of human beings to control their own greed.

We all like to have more! Food, shelter, clothing, cars, money.....

Its a pity very few can claim more - sense, and wisdom.

BTW Its being going on, ever since we crawled out of the primordial slime.

I don't see it being curbed anytime soon.

But I do believe it has its own consequences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When the too-big-to-fail banks were bailed out by the Fed, that is hardly capitalism. It is socialising the banks losses amongst the taxpayers. What we have now is corruption at high levels. I'd start by funding elections from the public purse to stop vested interests controlling governments.

It is the very definition of capitalism, namely to use whatever resources you have at your disposal to maximise profits. Mining advertisements here, funding lobby groups and stocking the FED in the US, it's all from the same playbook. Even industrial espionage, insider trading, marketplace collusion. The fact that they hit the public purse is not too far removed from tax evasion - hardly a socialist ideal. (In a socialist system they would have been nationised.)

If by capitalist you mean free and fair marketplace, then yes. But then the term capitalist no longer describes our economic system (nor the US's) and you'll need to come up with a new term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is the very definition of capitalism, namely to use whatever resources you have at your disposal to maximise profits. Mining advertisements here, funding lobby groups and stocking the FED in the US, it's all from the same playbook. Even industrial espionage, insider trading, marketplace collusion. The fact that they hit the public purse is not too far removed from tax evasion - hardly a socialist ideal. (In a socialist system they would have been nationised.)

If by capitalist you mean free and fair marketplace, then yes. But then the term capitalist no longer describes our economic system (nor the US's) and you'll need to come up with a new term.

Corporatocracy?

Fascism?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is the very definition of capitalism, namely to use whatever resources you have at your disposal to maximise profits. Mining advertisements here, funding lobby groups and stocking the FED in the US, it's all from the same playbook. Even industrial espionage, insider trading, marketplace collusion. The fact that they hit the public purse is not too far removed from tax evasion - hardly a socialist ideal. (In a socialist system they would have been nationised.)

If by capitalist you mean free and fair marketplace, then yes. But then the term capitalist no longer describes our economic system (nor the US's) and you'll need to come up with a new term.

A free and fair marketplace is what I mean. The GFC showed that that there is not much left of it. People/organisations should be allowed to take risks in exchange for rewards if they succeed as well as having to absorb all the losses if they fail. The too-big-to-fail approach to banks showed clearly that vested interests are quite happy to influence governments into socialising losses. Same applies to the seemingly endless government subsidies to the housing and car industries. If they can't stand on their own feet, then the market should exact its price and taxpayers' money should not be wasted. People forget that taxes are a transfer of money from the productive/efficient end of the economy to the unproductive end. Taxing the productive end to death will drive the capital elsewhere. Socialist France is finding that out as they implement their 75% tax rates. Hence why the size of the government sector needs to be constrained as they seldom are efficient at what they do. The endless legislations at every layer of government that must be met by business only serves to constrain economic activity. That does not mean free-for-all rape approach, but the size of the government sector needs to be constrained and forced to regularly review legislation and remove inefficiencies in its practices. Having done contract work for government and semi-government corporations, it is all too clear how inefficient they are and would not survive if they had to compete in the market place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People/organisations should be allowed to take risks in exchange for rewards if they succeed as well as having to absorb all the losses if they fail.

What are your feelings on bankruptcy. That would in some lights be "socialising the losses".

Same applies to the seemingly endless government subsidies to the housing and car industries. If they can't stand on their own feet, then the market should exact its price and taxpayers' money should not be wasted.

I did enjoy the car makers saying that Holden (? maybe) gets support from the tax payers but then their employees and the company pays much more than that support in tax. It just seems backwards somehow. Tax them then give some back (but only to specific industries)? Not really sure I approve of that on efficiency grounds alone.

Having done contract work for government and semi-government corporations, it is all too clear how inefficient they are and would not survive if they had to compete in the market place.[/size]

heh private industry is not _that_ much better, I work for both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now