The bankers’ dictatorship in Greece

Mean Mr Mustard · Post by **Mean Mr Mustard** » 13 Sep 2012, 16:29

post deleted

Mean Mr Mustard · Post by **Mean Mr Mustard** » 13 Sep 2012, 16:31

kenneal - lagger wrote:It's not Capitalism that needs growth, it's the current banking system which is not a necessary part of capitalism. A banking system is required but an Islamic system would do equally well.

Capitalism is lost and gone now I'm afraid. It has been replaced by Corporatism where every thing is done for the benefit of a few corporate giants, which deem themselves too big to fail. "Too big to fail" is not a part of Capitalism.

Thus an anti-corporate view isn't confined to left or right? Hmmm...

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 13 Sep 2012, 17:14

Not any more, apparently. Though I get the feeling that while the Left sort-of saw this endgame coming (for example Marx's comment about the seeds of its own destruction), those further right didn't think it would happen, and that left to itself a proper capitalist economy would reach a kind of happy equilibrium.

Which it does.

Then some ejit comes along and removes all possible restraints and we end up with consolidated corporations overpowering the governments.

Mean Mr Mustard · Post by **Mean Mr Mustard** » 13 Sep 2012, 17:46

Ejit? Granted, there were some minor excesses in Dublin, to be sure...

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 13 Sep 2012, 18:23

There's just no UK-English word quite as good as "ejit"

Even though, as you say, this particular ejitery had nothing to do with the Emerald Isle.

Mean Mr Mustard · Post by **Mean Mr Mustard** » 13 Sep 2012, 18:34

'ejitery' is an even better word.

Meanwhile, I am working on getting 'good stiff ignoring' accepted into the mainstream vernacular.

There seems to be a lot of it about.

DominicJ · Post by **DominicJ** » 13 Sep 2012, 19:26

Steve
I can grow ten onions
Or I can grow five

Please do explain why 5 onions is a better outcome than ten

As I said, your own prejudices rule you.

Mean Mr Mustard · Post by **Mean Mr Mustard** » 13 Sep 2012, 19:32

Ten onions will make you fart. Typical right wing 'greed is good' mentality.

Ejit.

JohnB · Post by **JohnB** » 13 Sep 2012, 19:42

Grow 10 and give 5 away.

Catweazle · Post by **Catweazle** » 13 Sep 2012, 20:40

JohnB wrote:Grow 10 and give 5 away.

You're not quite getting this "Capitalism" thing are you

.

On a sensible note, growing 10 and selling 5 is fine, as long as there are many other people growing and selling onions in a free market or there are alternative foods easily available.

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 13 Sep 2012, 21:21

Catweazle wrote:
JohnB wrote:Grow 10 and give 5 away.
You're not quite getting this "Capitalism" thing are you .

On a sensible note, growing 10 and selling 5 is fine, as long as there are many other people growing and selling onions in a free market or there are alternative foods easily available.

And therin lies the problem.

On a finite planet of finite primary resources as soon as one or more market participants gain preferential access to or control of a finite primary resource, especially a key finite primary resource upon which all other market participants must depend for their very existence a free market ceases to exist. One may argue that is fine, one may not. But what it is not is a free market.

The very essence of a free market is predicated on the capacity of any market participant to refuse to engage in a given trade if they so wish. So, unless one is prepared to make the perverse argument that people are free to choose to starve instead of paying over a given price for a key resource such as food, it is logically impossible to argue that a free market exists in any of the key primary resources. As soon as that point is conceded, then it logically follows that such markets should be heavily regulated at the very least or even taken into unadulterated common ownership.

JavaScriptDonkey · Post by **JavaScriptDonkey** » 13 Sep 2012, 22:34

stevecook172001 wrote:
On a finite planet of finite primary resources as soon as one or more market participants gain preferential access to or control of a finite primary resource, especially a key finite primary resource upon which all other market participants must depend for their very existence a free market ceases to exist. One may argue that is fine, one may not. But what it is not is a free market.

The very essence of a free market is predicated on the capacity of any market participant to refuse to engage in a given trade if they so wish. So, unless one is prepared to make the perverse argument that people are free to choose to starve instead of paying over a given price for a key resource such as food, it is logically impossible to argue that a free market exists in any of the key primary resources. As soon as that point is conceded, then it logically follows that such markets should be heavily regulated at the very least or even taken into unadulterated common ownership.

Ahhh, I wondered why the heavily regulated economy of the USSR was such a powerful force in the world today and why no one ever wanted to flee to the oppressive and restrictive capitalist West.

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 16 Sep 2012, 19:04

To be able to "choose not to buy", in any given circumstance, is a black art which I am attempting to perfect.

The biggest expenses seem to involve travel and entertainment. To be perfectly happy where one is, is truly a fiendish weapon

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 16 Sep 2012, 19:37

JavaScriptDonkey wrote:
stevecook172001 wrote:
On a finite planet of finite primary resources as soon as one or more market participants gain preferential access to or control of a finite primary resource, especially a key finite primary resource upon which all other market participants must depend for their very existence a free market ceases to exist. One may argue that is fine, one may not. But what it is not is a free market.

The very essence of a free market is predicated on the capacity of any market participant to refuse to engage in a given trade if they so wish. So, unless one is prepared to make the perverse argument that people are free to choose to starve instead of paying over a given price for a key resource such as food, it is logically impossible to argue that a free market exists in any of the key primary resources. As soon as that point is conceded, then it logically follows that such markets should be heavily regulated at the very least or even taken into unadulterated common ownership.

Ahhh, I wondered why the heavily regulated economy of the USSR was such a powerful force in the world today and why no one ever wanted to flee to the oppressive and restrictive capitalist West.

Don't look to me to justify USSR economics. They were shit. However, Western capitalist economics are not so much shit as physically impossible now that we have hit the resource buffers. Or, at least, they are impossible if you expect them to operate in any environment other than one in which there are violent revolutions every other day and/or violent suppression of them.

It doesn't actually matter what system is in place. Our civilisation is going to crash and burn, come what may. All that a more equitable sharing out of resource does is increase the likelihood that we don't set off the fireworks and close up the shop for good on the way down. In other words, it at least raises the possibility that we will have something left to salvage on the other side of this long emergency.