Where's the bankers are wankers thread?
-
nodubmanshouts
- Utterly Bastard Groovy Amphetamine Filth
- Posts: 557
- Joined: 19 Oct 2003, 06:50
- Location: California
DeWinter wrote:I'd consider what we have now Socialism, to be honest. High-tax, huge increase in the numbers employed by the State, arguable over-regulation,increase of State power, distribution of wealth from those who earn to those the Government considers to be deserving.markfiend wrote: Oh and as for socialism, I don't see what's so bad about trying to run society for the good of everybody, not just for the rich.
Personally, I see no reason for me to lose a third of my income in direct taxation alone (never mind Council Tax, VAT and the TV tax)and have less spare cash than some on benefits I know.
that's why i don't like socialism - it sounds good but that money for so~called equality comes from our pocket. helping by teaching is far better than helping by giving something for free.-
markfiend
- goriller of form 3b
- Posts: 21181
- Joined: 11 Nov 2003, 10:55
- Location: st custards
- Contact:
F*cking hell have I stumbled into the Daily Mail forums?
The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.
—Bertrand Russell
—Bertrand Russell
-
Ramone
- Utterly Bastard Groovy Amphetamine Filth
- Posts: 568
- Joined: 16 Mar 2006, 18:35
- Location: Liverpool, England
Where's the bankers are wankers thread?
Surely isn't this it ?
Surely isn't this it ?
"It was great that Kurt Cobain shot himself when he did..cos without that ,we'd have no Foo Fighters today" :Ramone, Little Lebowski Urban Achiever. November 2008
Your eyes will pop out off their sockets soon when you calculate how much of your sorely earned tax will be stuffed down the fanthomless throat of "capitalism".Bartek wrote:DeWinter wrote:I'd consider what we have now Socialism, to be honest. High-tax, huge increase in the numbers employed by the State, arguable over-regulation,increase of State power, distribution of wealth from those who earn to those the Government considers to be deserving.markfiend wrote: Oh and as for socialism, I don't see what's so bad about trying to run society for the good of everybody, not just for the rich.
Personally, I see no reason for me to lose a third of my income in direct taxation alone (never mind Council Tax, VAT and the TV tax)and have less spare cash than some on benefits I know.
Let's call socialism the "capitalism in favour of Johnny Everyone", if that helps pushing asside evil associations for eastern europeans who suffered a socialism that was everything, but not social.
Edit: An even mix of both is the way that works, a mostly free market where big clusters of money can not take the full effect of money's gravity. No news. And a nice theory.
"These are my principles! And if you don't like the just says so, I have others, too!"
~Rufus T. Firefly
~Rufus T. Firefly
-
Syberberg
- Utterly Bastard Groovy Amphetamine Filth
- Posts: 959
- Joined: 17 Feb 2006, 05:46
- Location: The People's Republic of West Yorkshire.
markfiend wrote:F*cking hell have I stumbled into the Daily Mail forums?
I was thinking that myself.One of the main problems is the way banks loan money. It's called fractional reserve lending. In a nutshell, it means not a single bank in the world has enough money to actually cover their debts and loans, because they loan out more money than they have in the "vault".
Money As Debt Part 1, I'm sure you can all manage to find the rest of it.
As eotunn (I think) has already pointed out, infinite growth on a finite planet is impossible.
What we are witnessing currently are the (predicable) results of extreme/unregulated capitalism.
My main concern is that the last time the world saw something similar, we ended up with the rise of totalitarianism (primarily in Europe) and WW2.
I don't necessarily agree with everything I think.
-
sultan2075
- Overbomber
- Posts: 2354
- Joined: 04 Mar 2005, 19:17
- Location: Washington, D. C.
- Contact:
But at that point it would have been one among many factors, and probably one of the lesser ones. I don't think the horrors of 20th century are reducible to economic causality.Syberberg wrote: My main concern is that the last time the world saw something similar, we ended up with the rise of totalitarianism (primarily in Europe) and WW2.
--
The most successful tyranny is not the one that uses force to assure uniformity but the one that removes the awareness of other possibilities, that makes it seem inconceivable that other ways are viable, that removes the sense that there is an outside.
The most successful tyranny is not the one that uses force to assure uniformity but the one that removes the awareness of other possibilities, that makes it seem inconceivable that other ways are viable, that removes the sense that there is an outside.
-
Syberberg
- Utterly Bastard Groovy Amphetamine Filth
- Posts: 959
- Joined: 17 Feb 2006, 05:46
- Location: The People's Republic of West Yorkshire.
I agree, it's almost impossible to narrow causes down to one single thing/event, but it was certainly what started the ball rolling, so-to-speak, and the end consequence was WW2.sultan2075 wrote:But at that point it would have been one among many factors, and probably one of the lesser ones. I don't think the horrors of 20th century are reducible to economic causality.Syberberg wrote: My main concern is that the last time the world saw something similar, we ended up with the rise of totalitarianism (primarily in Europe) and WW2.
Would WW2 have happened regardless of the Great Depression? Probably not, but it's something we'll never know for sure.
As to whether a similar set of circumstances will result in a similar outcome, I haven't the faintest idea. It all depends on how bad things get and for how long. We've also got the added problems of (in no particular order): population overshoot, resource depletion, decreasing soil fertility and climate change. How this will all pan out is any body's guess, it's just too early to tell yet.
I hope we humans have evolved far enough that we can sort out our problems by cooperation not conflict. My concern is that some of us haven't.
I don't necessarily agree with everything I think.
-
weebleswobble
- Underneath the Rock
- Posts: 5875
- Joined: 09 Feb 2006, 06:57
- Location: The Bat-Milk Cave
- Contact:
Brother can you spare a dime?
‎"We will wear some very loud shirts. We will wear some very wrong trousers."
-
markfiend
- goriller of form 3b
- Posts: 21181
- Joined: 11 Nov 2003, 10:55
- Location: st custards
- Contact:
The social conservative wing of the US Republican party certainly seem intent on instantiating a new totalitarianism.
The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.
—Bertrand Russell
—Bertrand Russell
-
weebleswobble
- Underneath the Rock
- Posts: 5875
- Joined: 09 Feb 2006, 06:57
- Location: The Bat-Milk Cave
- Contact:
I'd have loved to hear you attempt that sentence last Saturday night!markfiend wrote:The social conservative wing of the US Republican party certainly seem intent on instantiating a new totalitarianism.
‎"We will wear some very loud shirts. We will wear some very wrong trousers."
-
sultan2075
- Overbomber
- Posts: 2354
- Joined: 04 Mar 2005, 19:17
- Location: Washington, D. C.
- Contact:
Yet it's Barack Obama whose campaign rhetoric and supporters remind me of Mussolini (and, as I may have mentioned, his speeches sound to my wife like the sort of thing she heard as a girl in the USSR). I think you're looking in the wrong place: if totalitarianism ever comes to the United States, it will come in the form of Tocqueville's soft despotism, which--in virtue of what it is--is significantly more likely to come from the left than the right. Tyranny won't come to the US under the cross, but under the belief in progress and utopia. Which, come to think of it, was how it came to parts of Europe in the 20th century. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.markfiend wrote:The social conservative wing of the US Republican party certainly seem intent on instantiating a new totalitarianism.
--
The most successful tyranny is not the one that uses force to assure uniformity but the one that removes the awareness of other possibilities, that makes it seem inconceivable that other ways are viable, that removes the sense that there is an outside.
The most successful tyranny is not the one that uses force to assure uniformity but the one that removes the awareness of other possibilities, that makes it seem inconceivable that other ways are viable, that removes the sense that there is an outside.
-
Brideoffrankenstein
- Overbomber
- Posts: 2883
- Joined: 15 Jan 2004, 01:51
Speak for yourself!biggy wrote:This 35 grand limit is a right pain in the arse.
I've moved some of my funds about so that I don't have more than 35,000 in any one bank but now I'm running out of banks.
-
darkparticle
- Gonzoid Amphetamine Filth
- Posts: 302
- Joined: 01 May 2008, 16:47
- Location: In the dark
Good shout markfiendExcept for self-interest there's little will to step forward, that's a part of all of us. I'm in a 7 year tussle with HMRC over their sponsorship of terrorist fascists who seem to have sold our National wealth and Heritage to corprorate identities without feelings, responsibilities or a sense of shame or honour.
During a pre-trial hearing they all acted tough, judge and defence counsel now 5 years later with a honed case, they still won't press the button and I can only assume they're spineless and without strength, naively arrogant.
This is just the futures market bursting, same as the commodities market in the 80's and any market that gets vastly inflated, over-rated stocks and securities, their potential over-valued until reality intrudes. Trade will always be in blows, I like it
People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid.
- Soren Aabye Kierkegaard
- Soren Aabye Kierkegaard
-
Syberberg
- Utterly Bastard Groovy Amphetamine Filth
- Posts: 959
- Joined: 17 Feb 2006, 05:46
- Location: The People's Republic of West Yorkshire.
Interesting article I've just had passed to me:
http://realitysandwich.com/money_and_cr ... vilization
Contains a very coherent explanation of the debt-interest model of continuous growth and how things might progress.
http://realitysandwich.com/money_and_cr ... vilization
Contains a very coherent explanation of the debt-interest model of continuous growth and how things might progress.
I don't necessarily agree with everything I think.
-
nodubmanshouts
- Utterly Bastard Groovy Amphetamine Filth
- Posts: 557
- Joined: 19 Oct 2003, 06:50
- Location: California
It should come as no surprise to any Brit that money is debt, by looking at the "I promise to pay the bearer...." written on each note.
This article is misleading on several fronts:
* The IOUs are mostly backed by assets (collateral). One cause of the current situation is that the banks wrote loans on assets which were incredibly over-valued, effectively reducing collateral, meaning it made more sense for borrowers to foreclose than continue paying. The idea that banks give away money to people on the street is not based on fact; most serious loans need collateral.
* Its possible to monetize assets without changing/destroying them, eg. a mortgage on real estate.
* The bankers who fail to disclose (etc) are open to criminal proceedings. Many banks have gone out of business, and are now worth nothing... there's not many people running off into the sunset with a nest egg (and for those who are, that's more a discussion about executive pay structure, which is a whole other thread...)
* The government is not giving away money (well, not in the USA), they are buying these "IOU"s to lubricate the financial system, which will have some value once the system returns to normal.
Still, interesting read, even if a bit biased.
This article is misleading on several fronts:
* The IOUs are mostly backed by assets (collateral). One cause of the current situation is that the banks wrote loans on assets which were incredibly over-valued, effectively reducing collateral, meaning it made more sense for borrowers to foreclose than continue paying. The idea that banks give away money to people on the street is not based on fact; most serious loans need collateral.
* Its possible to monetize assets without changing/destroying them, eg. a mortgage on real estate.
* The bankers who fail to disclose (etc) are open to criminal proceedings. Many banks have gone out of business, and are now worth nothing... there's not many people running off into the sunset with a nest egg (and for those who are, that's more a discussion about executive pay structure, which is a whole other thread...)
* The government is not giving away money (well, not in the USA), they are buying these "IOU"s to lubricate the financial system, which will have some value once the system returns to normal.
Still, interesting read, even if a bit biased.
Power, Corruption & The New World Odour
-
paint it black
- Black, black, black & even blacker
- Posts: 4962
- Joined: 11 Jul 2002, 01:00
Gordon Brown: "Which one of you is Robert Preston (from the BBC)?"
RP: "Me."
GB: "You're a c**t."
RP: "Thank you."
RP: "Me."
GB: "You're a c**t."
RP: "Thank you."
Goths have feelings too
-
weebleswobble
- Underneath the Rock
- Posts: 5875
- Joined: 09 Feb 2006, 06:57
- Location: The Bat-Milk Cave
- Contact:
Does this mean the end of Kerry Katona?
‎"We will wear some very loud shirts. We will wear some very wrong trousers."
-
Silver_Owl
- The Don
- Posts: 7498
- Joined: 27 Sep 2003, 18:52
I thought it was funny anyway mate.weebleswobble wrote:Does this mean the end of Kerry Katona?
We forgive as we forget
As the day is long.
As the day is long.