Heartland

Ah yes, it does say California, though as I write, I am sitting at a kitchen table in a small town in Japan.... which means I have a bit of trouble googling for counter arguments. I'm pretty sure though that the standard of living in both India and China has increased greatly in the last 10-20 years - a large part of the Eastern population, I think. Which countries are you referring to, markfiend?

As for Germany, I have no idea. Do they embrace deregulation? Have they suffered because their once-strong currency is no more? Is sacrificing a school trip for cheap, quality food really a bad thing? (I lived through a period of many teachers' strikes, and never got any school trips or extra lessons. I seem to be doing okay). Do the parents of these children have HDTVs and drive nice cars? Is it just that they choose not to pay for a school trip?

7anthea7 wrote:

stufarq wrote:Are you sure I don't need my spleen? I'd hate to vent it and then find out that it was important.

Anyway, in answer to your question, is it too obvious to say Thatcher? It is, isn't it? Which is as good a reason as any to say it: Thatcher.

And in the US, her partner in crime: Ronald Effing Reagan, the legacy of whose deregulatory policies vis-à-vis the banking industry is the destabilisation of the economy of the entire world. And that's only the most obvious of his crimes.

By the way: Their partner in crime: Helmut Kohl, who had 16 years of unlimited impact on Germany's legislation and still denies prossecutors details on who donated those cases with all the money for his party, the CDU, in them. It's said that a Mr. Schreiber, a weapon's dealer who's sought for in Germany, had something to do with it.

Edit: Some article I recently read about Thatcher said that in NATO-circles she often was referred to as "Attila the Hen".

nodubmanshouts wrote:The other major factors in the financial crisis were out-and-out fraud, and the ability of banks to lend out more money than they have, backed against over-valued assets. Both of these have been going on for centuries and have nothing to do with Thatcherism or deregulation.

I don't know about that. One of the major casualties here in the UK was Northern Rock, which converted from a building society (whereby its priorities had, by law, to be for the safety of its members' money) to a bank (priority: shareholders) precisely because deregulation allowed it.

nodubmanshouts wrote:I'm pretty sure though that the standard of living in both India and China has increased greatly in the last 10-20 years - a large part of the Eastern population, I think. Which countries are you referring to, markfiend?

If this is indeed the case, I'll have to rethink. I do know there's a hell of a lot more rural poverty in China than there used to be, and their environment's shot to sh!t.

I dunno.

Needless to say, wiping out shareholder equity does NOTHING for shareholders, and a public company has to - by law - protect those shareholders.

What caused Northern Rock to fail was a run, caused by bad loans. That has absolutely nothing to do with whether it was a bank or building society, and was precisely due to the reasons you just quoted me for: fraud, and lending out more money than they had. And that has nothing to do with Thatcherism or deregulation.

It failed as a bank, and would have failed as a building society too.

Its hard to effectively measure standards of living in countries, especially somewhere like China where the government still tends to hide the truth, or bias the statistics. Even "average" standard of living means little in large countries with disparate rural and urban populations.

From everything I've read and seen, the standard of living is better in most countries across the globe, but I can't back that up with a sheet of hard facts right now. I do feel that the "West gets rich at the expense of the developing countries" thing is a myth. There are countries which are poorer for many other reasons than that - civil war, AIDS,... religion.

But back to the original point, I don't believe that Thatcherism or deregulation has had a negative effect on the local or global quality of life. I just don't see evidence for that.

nodubmanshouts wrote: As for Germany, I have no idea. Do they embrace deregulation? Have they suffered because their once-strong currency is no more? Is sacrificing a school trip for cheap, quality food really a bad thing? (I lived through a period of many teachers' strikes, and never got any school trips or extra lessons. I seem to be doing okay). Do the parents of these children have HDTVs and drive nice cars? Is it just that they choose not to pay for a school trip?

You seem to be joking ... it's not a question of either participate in things that 90 % can take part in or
have quality food ...
and usually the parents of theses kids do not have a car or a HDTV at all, despite gong to work, daily.
Poverty rates have increased extremely in this country.
See for example:
http://www.pnyv.org/index.php?id=34&tx_ ... 8993975c19

And as far as I know it's not much better in Britain ...

nodubmanshouts wrote:But back to the original point, I don't believe that Thatcherism or deregulation has had a negative effect on the local or global quality of life. I just don't see evidence for that.

Fair enough. I disagree (obviously) but I'm happy to leave it at that.

Being645 wrote:

nodubmanshouts wrote: As for Germany, I have no idea. Do they embrace deregulation? Have they suffered because their once-strong currency is no more? Is sacrificing a school trip for cheap, quality food really a bad thing? (I lived through a period of many teachers' strikes, and never got any school trips or extra lessons. I seem to be doing okay). Do the parents of these children have HDTVs and drive nice cars? Is it just that they choose not to pay for a school trip?

You seem to be joking ... it's not a question of either participate in things that 90 % can take part in or
have quality food ...
and usually the parents of theses kids do not have a car or a HDTV at all, despite gong to work, daily.
Poverty rates have increased extremely in this country.
See for example:
http://www.pnyv.org/index.php?id=34&tx_ ... 8993975c19

And as far as I know it's not much better in Britain ...

Would you call "Company opperated offices in government owned office buildings" freedom of market? As a fact that was revealed one or two years ago on German TV Magazine Frontal 21 how several lobbyists were asked by german officials how these lobbies would like some laws in question put.
Is that free market? I'd rather say "No". That's company supported capptalistic dictatorship or mock-up-democracy.
Where's me blimmin´ pillbox, I get angry again..

eotunun wrote: Would you call "Company operated offices in government owned office buildings" freedom of market? As a fact that was revealed one or two years ago on German TV Magazine Frontal 21 about how several lobbyists were asked by German officials how these lobbies would like some laws be put into question. Is that free market? I'd rather say "No". That's company supported captilastic dictatorship or mock-democracy.
Where's me blimmin´ pillbox, I get angry again..

uh, - locker bleiben ... as long as they don't give you the hunger punishment for rejecting to work for 1 €/h ...

markfiend wrote:

nodubmanshouts wrote:But back to the original point, I don't believe that Thatcherism or deregulation has had a negative effect on the local or global quality of life. I just don't see evidence for that.

Fair enough. I disagree (obviously) but I'm happy to leave it at that.

I tend to think that the influence Maggie Thatcher had is overated.
Money is highly mobile, and countries tend to ask for jobs. So the money goes where there are governments that are willing to allow companies to exploit workers the most for the gain.
With the power of companies grown enough, there's just the question which country will be the first brick in the dam to break and give way to the flood.
In this case it was Thatcher.
Globalization could happen, so it did. Countries are run by ambitious little posers that want to sell themselves as the ones in controll and the great winners who ride the beast that is ecconomy and direct it where they want.
..not admitting they are as much in controll as is a fly on the windscreen.
They completely fail to realize that the call of the day to really serve their offices would be arranging international standards and force countries like China into keeping environmental and social standards etc.

I forgot to add: Stock/Aitken/Waterman! They are the devil's own servants! Forget Thatcher and all them.

markfiend wrote:...deregulation simply empowers the already-powerful to rob the rest of us blind. Laissez-faire capitalism has always just been a method to make the rich richer and the poor poorer...

Bang. on.

nodubmanshouts wrote:Deregulation had very little to do with the financial crisis we are currently exiting...The other major factors in the financial crisis were out-and-out fraud, and the ability of banks to lend out more money than they have, backed against over-valued assets...Deregulation allows more opportunities for everyone, not just the 'already-powerful'. Sure, the rich get richer, but look at the list of the worlds wealthiest people - very few come from "old money": Gates, Buffet, the Walmart Waltons, Dell, Page, and so on...

I hardly know where to start...

The 'out-and-out fraud' was possible because of the lack of oversight that accompanied deregulation. Banks started lending more money than they had because the competition engendered by deregulation encouraged them to make unbelievably bad loans just so they could keep their shareholders happy (the greedy fecking bastards...).

Deregulation only creates opportunity for those who are already in the game - and as they accumulate more and more of the available wealth, those who aren't in the game become little more than feudal subjects. That the richest aren't 'old money' bears this out - they have profited immensely from some abysmal economic policies that have paupered many, many more.

And yes, I'm a raving socialist and proud of it.

I think we're singing from the same hymnsheet here 7anthea7

The 'out-and-out fraud' was possible because of the lack of oversight that accompanied deregulation.

Not really true, that, is it? I mean what you are talking about is the failure of regulation. The rules were there, and the fraud had NOTHING to do with deregulation.

Banks started lending more money than they had

They've been doing that for 100s of years! I don't think you can blame Thatcherism or deregulation...

because the competition engendered by deregulation encouraged them to make unbelievably bad loans just so they could keep their shareholders happy (the greedy fecking bastards...).

First, that's just wrong. I know banks that didn't make suicide loans to people back during the housing crisis. They are, of course, doing just fine right now. Nobody was encouraged to do anything. Signing a loan for somebody who cannot afford it is just plain fraud and stupidity, and again, nothing to do with deregulation.

Secondly, who are these fecking, greedy shareholders? Do you even understand who shareholders are? They are people like everyone on this forum... pension funds and retirement funds - like I'm sure everyone here has - invest in companys, so by proxy WE are the shareholders. The truly rich can usually make much better returns in other investment vehicles than stocks, since their time frame is usually a lot, lot longer (generations).

Poverty rates have increased extremely in this country.
See for example:
http://www.pnyv.org/index.php?id=34&tx_ ... 8993975c19

Can't pursue this one, since I can't read German....

nodubmanshouts wrote:

The 'out-and-out fraud' was possible because of the lack of oversight that accompanied deregulation.

Not really true, that, is it? I mean what you are talking about is the failure of regulation. The rules were there, and the fraud had NOTHING to do with deregulation.

Sorry, but deregulation had plenty to do with it. What you seem to be saying is that everything that has caused the current economic meltdown was already in operation when deregulation occurred. In that case, the last thing that should have happened was deregulation - if anything, regulations should have been dramatically increased. And if in fact that type of behaviour was not yet occurring...then it only bolsters my case that deregulation was a major factor in allowing it to spread and proliferate.

And then wrote:

Banks started lending more money than they had

They've been doing that for 100s of years! I don't think you can blame Thatcherism or deregulation...

Oh, come on - I took your comment out of its context, but I didn't change its meaning. Of course banks have been making loans on more assets than they had for a long time - but within conservative and reasonably 'safe' limits, because that's what shareholders used to stress. The long-term stability of the bank was of more importance than astronomic short-term gains. Deregulation encouraged a culture of competition that led to, essentially, gambling behaviour. Once it was recognised how much money was to be made by manipulating those loans - and passing them off as 'safe' investments so they could be sold and got off their books - it all spiraled out of control. That is the inevitable result of putting personal gain ahead of socioeconomic responsibility.

And also wrote:

because the competition engendered by deregulation encouraged them to make unbelievably bad loans just so they could keep their shareholders happy (the greedy fecking bastards...).

First, that's just wrong...Secondly, who are these fecking, greedy shareholders? Do you even understand who shareholders are?

I understand quite well who they are, thank you. And I also know what deregulation of the industry made possible, which you appear to be intent upon denying and/or justifying.

And then wrote:They are people like everyone on this forum... pension funds and retirement funds - like I'm sure everyone here has - invest in companys, so by proxy WE are the shareholders.

That's an extraordinarily simplistic viewpoint. Pension and retirement fund investments aren't, by and large, made directly, as you quite well know. There are several levels of bureaucracy between the average employee and any company in which they might be considered, in your view, 'invested' - including their own board of directors if they happen to work for a corporation. That kind of analogy is like saying some Republican voter in Ohio who supported Bush has a direct connection with US military ops in Iraq.

And finally wrote:The truly rich can usually make much better returns in other investment vehicles than stocks, since their time frame is usually a lot, lot longer (generations).

Except you made the point yourself that none of the current super-rich are 'old money'. And, hello? Warren Buffett??? So you can't really use that justification in this context, because those 'generations' are all in the future. The kind of thing that's been going on that has resulted in this financial catastrophe has recent beginnings - unless, of course, you want to go back to the 1929 crash, which was one of the prime motivations for regulation in the first place. And in that context (in the US, that is):

Before the 1929 crash, few regulations were enforced. Investors were not protected from fraud, hype and shoddy stocks. Individuals didn’t know whether companies were doing as well as they claimed and whether companies’ financial reports were reliable.

It was after the crash that an agency known as the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) was established to lay down laws against dishonest trading practices and punish violators.

During the stock market crash of 1929, 4000 banks failed because depositors fought to reach teller windows before the money ran out and their savings disappeared forever.

Four years later, Congress passed the Glass-Steagall Act which banned any connection between commercial banks and investment banking, to ensure that such a tragedy would never be repeated in the belief that the banks’ collapse was due to their stock market speculation.

Unfortunately, as we all know to our detriment, pressure from the industry undermined those efforts and left us in the state we're in today.

As markfiend noted, we'll have to accept our disagreement on this one and just let it go. It's pretty obvious we're at opposite ends of the spectrum, and there's no middle ground where we can meet. If you feel you need the final word, it's all yours - I gave up beating my head against brick walls a long time ago...

Had to fix that typo - my inner editor is a total bitch...

7anthea7 wrote:Deregulation only creates opportunity for those who are already in the game - and as they accumulate more and more of the available wealth, those who aren't in the game become little more than feudal subjects. That the richest aren't 'old money' bears this out - they have profited immensely from some abysmal economic policies that have paupered many, many more.

I'm with you & Markfiend on this Anthea – What can we do? What would we like to do? ... I know only too well what happens if one protests in Blighty – Penned-in/hemmed-in by the Met (or some other parochial uniformed bullies), reminding you (in a deeply threatening way) how totally helpless (and vulnerable) you really are (if you are lucky) ... So, I salute those who were brave enough to take to the streets in Brighton recently against the Arms Trade – Another completely avoidable 'investment' in exploitation and misery, largely overlooked it seems here (on this topic/thread), eh?

Meanwhile as the FTSE climbs again on another absurd surge of optimism, to get us all spending (aka borrowing) again - Funny how everything always 'settles down' to 'Business as Usual', oh so quickly – Everytime ... Where are 'they' going to find the £££/$$$ to 'bail out' the banks next time though, when it inevitably all goes 'pear-shaped' again?

Needless to say, in a vain (?) attempt to desperately snatch some rare moments of fun/optimism, I'm planning to party like there's no tomorrow when Thatch finally 'pops her clogs' – Join me?

p.s. One albeit tiny thing one can do to break this capitalist system is to bin M$ Windoze/Apple Mac and learn how to use Linux or even BSD - FOSS (Free Open Source Software) really does help those in the Third World struggling to afford and use computers - Linux often runs quite happily on older 'pooters, unlike the latest deliberately designed OS from M$ which wants to prematurely 'retire' hardly-old compooters to the scrap heap - Forcing 'users' unwillingly in to the next 'loop' of the consumer 'Merry-Go-Round' - This sad, worn-out and greedy technique was first spotted/exposed by Ralph Nader in relation to the US Auto Industry (see:~ Unsafe at Any Speed, 1965), and look what has happened to that, eh? Not that it got Mr Nader elected, but it made some of us aware of what Business as Usual really means ... On the subject of FOSS though, try, learn and use it, then give a little back, helping others do the same - Do some development too if you know enough about software - Pretty Please???



This should make for some pretty juicy scandal when it gets out! (price currently going UP) :~

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009 ... journalism

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 81169.html

"Culture Secretary Andy Burnham, Europe Minister Caroline Flint and Welsh Secretary Paul Murphy bought flats – or the freehold on properties they already owned – and claimed back stamp duty and other moving costs. Mr Murphy is said to have claimed for a new boiler because his water was too hot."

Linux and proud Dodges

I got mrs fiend's mum's ancient laptop (128-Meg of RAM and a 9-Gig HDD, was Win98 but got a virus and died, couldn't find windows restore disk) running on Linux in about an hour, so she could get on the broadband. Now she's happily browsing, word processing, whatever she wants, without having to upgrade the hardware.

mh wrote:Dawkins does labour his points a little excessively, but what he has to say makes a lot of sense, you know.

Yet for religious market criers, the same kind of behaviour seems not only perfectly acceptable but actually required and the norm. Dawkins is doing his thing just fine and we should be glad he exists.

markfiend wrote:Linux and proud Dodges

I got mrs fiend's mum's ancient laptop (128-Meg of RAM and a 9-Gig HDD, was Win98 but got a virus and died, couldn't find windows restore disk) running on Linux in about an hour, so she could get on the broadband. Now she's happily browsing, word processing, whatever she wants, without having to upgrade the hardware.

Great stuff Fiendish One!!! - I expect you would agree that with a little patience & Linux, one can learn and 'profit', eh? - Too bad that others can't/won't - Their loss ... Anyway, I trust your 'in-law' is feeling Minty Fresh now? - Nearly time for Mint 7 'Gloria' too! - I hope it is even better than Felicia?!

Dodges Unlimited Inc. wrote:I'm with you & Markfiend on this Anthea – What can we do? What would we like to do?

Ah, would that I had an answer that didn't require a 500-page diatribe.

If you'd asked me that question 30 years ago, I'd have been able to tell you exactly what was needed, and I'd have believed it possible. At this point in time, I don't foresee the changes that are necessary happening in the context of the world as we know it.

If you'd asked me 40 years ago, I'd have said 'Eat the rich'...

Sure, we can agree to disagree. But, 7anthea7, I think you're misunderstanding what deregulation actually is. In fact, since deregulation banks have had to cope with MORE rules and regulations than ever before.

nodubmanshouts wrote:rules and regulations

Ah, that be a 'guidebok' for those banking scum to ignore, eh?

No, those would be laws, which, if ignored, could send you to jail... as has happened already.