What Caused Our Economic Crisis?
perseus
Active member
Ultimately it was
1) companies with short terms profit goals with obligations to shareholders and boardmembers rather than wider society
2) lack of regulation of the private sector allowing Laisse-faire economics
3) private funding of political parties a reciepe for disaster in itself
As guilty as the Democrats are these are principally sins of right wing goverments and it seems a bit bizarre that the Republican sympathisers are using it as Ammo. All it shows is that you have two far right wing parties with perhaps less idealogical difference between them than is typically assumed.
It seems that socialism seems to be popular for a few weeks whilst the rich get their hands on taxpayers money then it's back to raw capitalism again as services are cut back because the government has given all the money to financial institutions.
Last edited:
So Perseus, Sir, pray what about ourselves here in th UK, with the same problems, perhaps worse and looking to the USA $700 + Billion to refelect benefits on our predicament?
We have had a socialist government in power with a big majority in the house since 1997, when they inherited Kenneth Clarke's sound financial situation.
What is their excuse? We are up the creek without a paddle, are we not?
We have had a socialist government in power with a big majority in the house since 1997, when they inherited Kenneth Clarke's sound financial situation.
What is their excuse? We are up the creek without a paddle, are we not?
perseus
Active member
Have I been asleep since 1997, which socialist government is this? Surely not the one that brought
- widespread privatisation,
- PFI initiatives,
- reduced company regulation,
- reduced corporate tax,
- eliminated Clause 4 (calling for the nationalisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange) from the Labour Party constitution, detached it from trade union roots,
- initiated a culture of business donations, and
- whose leader refused to reverse any of Thatchers changes saying She was a thoroughly determined person and that is an admirable quality," (Blair 1995)
This should have been an opportunity to bring the banks into the public sector and start paying their execs what they really deserve for their mismanagement, a term behind bars if I had my way! Safeguard depositers using public money but pay shareholders nothing in my view that's why they call it risk capital. If the banks were profitable for the shareholders over the last few decades, there is no reason why they can't pay back the public purse over time. Any fool can con people into taking out a savings account paying 3% interest in an inflationary environment and pretend it's working for them, or impose draconian charges on an account for missing a payment, going OD etc. Legalised robbery nothing less, talk about printing their own money...............
Last edited by a moderator:
Tell that to the Labour (socialist) party conference. If you had told them I had the wrong party, they would have had you man-handled out for heresy. My political interest and involvement stems from the installation of the Atlee government, so it is not me who cites the wrong party ; I happened to have been a representative on the strike committee of one tof the earliest engineering union walk-outs.
You make precisely my point. This is the government we have had since 1997, who are responsible for our situation here, and especially our ex- chancellor and current Prime Minister, sitting with Geo W. this very day.
And tell me, are they not the Labour party ; the Socialists, to a degree headed throughout by ex- Trots and ex-Communists, and backed basically by the Trade Unions.
Sure, they could have done many things - but they were too busy disenfranchising the British people.
Am I not right to pin the label on them? They are just about to nationalise another bank, having allowed our power, including nuclear to be sold to French and German companies. They are allowing the water companies to strangle us. Socialist bureaucrats, amongst others, are pampered and padded with vast salaries, and gold-plated pensions that are bankrupting the system, and let's face it, they are only pen-pushers, occupying jobs until now done on an expenses only basis. All this is the result of big government. We have been asset-stripped, including our gold reserves, which went for a pittance, and sold down the river politically.
You make precisely my point. This is the government we have had since 1997, who are responsible for our situation here, and especially our ex- chancellor and current Prime Minister, sitting with Geo W. this very day.
And tell me, are they not the Labour party ; the Socialists, to a degree headed throughout by ex- Trots and ex-Communists, and backed basically by the Trade Unions.
Sure, they could have done many things - but they were too busy disenfranchising the British people.
Am I not right to pin the label on them? They are just about to nationalise another bank, having allowed our power, including nuclear to be sold to French and German companies. They are allowing the water companies to strangle us. Socialist bureaucrats, amongst others, are pampered and padded with vast salaries, and gold-plated pensions that are bankrupting the system, and let's face it, they are only pen-pushers, occupying jobs until now done on an expenses only basis. All this is the result of big government. We have been asset-stripped, including our gold reserves, which went for a pittance, and sold down the river politically.
Last edited:
perseus
Active member
Don't think there are too many of these in Blair or Brown's government, or at least they have long changed colour to blue if they have. Believe me every true Socialist is appalled at 'New Labours' right wing extremism.
What would Cameron have done then?
Incidentally BBC News business editor Robert Peston says the Treasury will almost instantaneously sell to a bank, or a number of banks. Hardly Nationalisation in practice, more like free market globalisation.
Last edited:
The current government is member of The Socialist International and a member of the Party of European Socialists.
You will remember that when Labour took over Sheffield council, Blunkett had the red flag raised over the county hall.
But I wish to understand, are you attacking or defending this Labour (socialist party) government , in power since 1997, with a free hand, on these issues?
You will remember that when Labour took over Sheffield council, Blunkett had the red flag raised over the county hall.
But I wish to understand, are you attacking or defending this Labour (socialist party) government , in power since 1997, with a free hand, on these issues?
Last edited:
senojekips
Active member
I think someone's not only missed the boat here, but they are waiting on the wrong wharf.
The issue is nothing to do with whether a government is, Capitalist, Socialist or Presbyterian, but what they have done to alleviate or exacerbate the problem.
This tagging or name calling, is no more than a cop out by those who see everything through their own, one eyed, politically filtered view.
Sorry Monty, I was answering at the same time but was delayed in posting by a local problem.
The issue is nothing to do with whether a government is, Capitalist, Socialist or Presbyterian, but what they have done to alleviate or exacerbate the problem.
This tagging or name calling, is no more than a cop out by those who see everything through their own, one eyed, politically filtered view.
Sorry Monty, I was answering at the same time but was delayed in posting by a local problem.
Last edited:
The Other Guy
Spam King
No, a socialist government is one that wants to take over the entire lending industry. Like the current executive one in the US, which reversed many of Clinton's policies which had created a surplus.
So it was the Democrats that started it and are solely responsible. Incredible!!
5.56 x 45mm, do you know anything about the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999? It deregulated the banking, insurance and securities sectors, repealing the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 (also known as the Emergency banking Act) that divided Wall Street berween investment banks and commercial banks. Guess who wanted the changes?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act
The bills were introduced in the Senate by Phil Gramm (R-TX) and in the House of Representatives by James Leach (R-IA) and Thomas Bliley (R-VA). The bills were passed by a 54-44 vote largely along party lines with Republican support in the Senate[1] and by a 343-86 vote in the House of Representatives[2]. Nov 4, 1999: After passing both the Senate and House the bill was moved to a conference committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions. Democrats agreed to support the bill only after Republicans agreed to strengthen provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act and address certain privacy concerns.[3]
5.56 x 45mm, I suggest you do some serious research on the topic before you start posting silly You tube segments that hardly begin to explain the complicated reasons for this shocking problem.
How about reading some financial papers??? Now there's a start!!
5.56 x 45mm, do you know anything about the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999? It deregulated the banking, insurance and securities sectors, repealing the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 (also known as the Emergency banking Act) that divided Wall Street berween investment banks and commercial banks. Guess who wanted the changes?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act
The bills were introduced in the Senate by Phil Gramm (R-TX) and in the House of Representatives by James Leach (R-IA) and Thomas Bliley (R-VA). The bills were passed by a 54-44 vote largely along party lines with Republican support in the Senate[1] and by a 343-86 vote in the House of Representatives[2]. Nov 4, 1999: After passing both the Senate and House the bill was moved to a conference committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions. Democrats agreed to support the bill only after Republicans agreed to strengthen provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act and address certain privacy concerns.[3]
5.56 x 45mm, I suggest you do some serious research on the topic before you start posting silly You tube segments that hardly begin to explain the complicated reasons for this shocking problem.
How about reading some financial papers??? Now there's a start!!
Last edited:
perseus
Active member
It's worth reading the criticisms in the same link
Economist Robert Kuttner (among others) has criticized the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act as contributing to the 2007 subprime mortgage financial crisis.[11] Economists Robert Ekelund and Mark Thornton have made similar criticisms, arguing that while "in a world regulated by a gold standard, 100% reserve banking, and no FDIC deposit insurance" the Financial Services Modernization Act would have made "perfect sense" as a legitimate act of deregulation, under the present fiat monetary system it "amounts to corporate welfare for financial institutions and a moral hazard that will make taxpayers pay dearly".
It seems to me both Republicans and Democrats have both contributed to this disaster, which tells me there is not to much difference between them like the two main parties in UK politics in my opinion, which answers Del Boy's question. These problems are due to a lack of regulation and corrupt funding of politicians.
Incidentally a rough outline of a deal has been agreed
There is a suprisingly unbiased view on this left wing site which describes the state of capitalism and concludes its demise is not likely not called for. However, it re-iterates the obvious again
http://www.ukwatch.net/article/the_end_of_capitalism_and_other_questions
Economist Robert Kuttner (among others) has criticized the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act as contributing to the 2007 subprime mortgage financial crisis.[11] Economists Robert Ekelund and Mark Thornton have made similar criticisms, arguing that while "in a world regulated by a gold standard, 100% reserve banking, and no FDIC deposit insurance" the Financial Services Modernization Act would have made "perfect sense" as a legitimate act of deregulation, under the present fiat monetary system it "amounts to corporate welfare for financial institutions and a moral hazard that will make taxpayers pay dearly".
It seems to me both Republicans and Democrats have both contributed to this disaster, which tells me there is not to much difference between them like the two main parties in UK politics in my opinion, which answers Del Boy's question. These problems are due to a lack of regulation and corrupt funding of politicians.
Incidentally a rough outline of a deal has been agreed
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7640223.stmThe deal proposes that the government would spend the $700bn to buy up bad mortgage-related debts from US banks, borrowing the cash from the money markets by issuing more government debt.
A White House spokesman welcomed the announcement and praised the efforts of the negotiators.
"We're pleased with the progress tonight and appreciate the bipartisan effort to stabilise our financial markets and protect our economy," said Tony Fratto.
The outline deal gives the treasury secretary
powers to oversee the two-year plan, but critics have insisted on the inclusion of greater oversight and reporting.
The BBC's Justin Webb in Washington says the tentative agreement that appears to have been reached is thought to include a measure to limit the pay for executives of companies which seek financial assistance, which was a key demand of the Democrats.
At the request of Republicans, who have strongly criticised some elements of the administration's proposal, the accord is believed to include the setting up an insurance program for mortgage-backed securities.
There is a suprisingly unbiased view on this left wing site which describes the state of capitalism and concludes its demise is not likely not called for. However, it re-iterates the obvious again
http://www.ukwatch.net/article/the_end_of_capitalism_and_other_questions
Last edited by a moderator:
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
Don't spend more than you earn and when you do take out credit, do it only for the things that are absolutely necessary and if you can pay it back within a few years.
The Other Guy
Spam King
Yes you can. No need to let silly things like facts get in your way.
perseus
Active member
Unlike many of you, I have wide experience of socialists, and indeed of communists and facists. Real experience. I was present at the creation of the Welfare State, and the National Health Service, and of The Socialist Workers Party.
I have lived through full terms of Socialist Party governments with widespread nationalised industries. I have operated behind the iron curtain, dealing with communist government departments.
I can remember when American magazine publications carried full page colour adverts of a tipped- up poisoned chalice, with the slogan "A little Socialism is a bad thing".
However our Socialist Party may have moved in its left of centre arc of fire, since 1997, it has failed dismally, and presided over a financial disaster, whilst at the same time, imposing the most intrusive bureaucratic grip on the population we have experienced.
Take another look at those International and EU titles - they clearly proclaim Socialist - not "socialist". The socialist vote kept them in power. They were congratulating themselves on that at their annual conference last week.
So as Perseus was pursuing the blame game, I asked him if he is attacking or defending them on
these financial crisis issues. Straight forward question.
Edit: Today they intend nationalising another bank to join it with the one they already have to form a super-bank. That will make a total investment of almost $200 billion.
Last edited:
perseus
Active member
'New Labour' suports the globalised economy and Neo-liberalist policies led by American economic might. It is the system itself that is to blame and can only be solved through dealing with the fundamental issues that caused it. Hence I blame anyone who supported deregulation of the finance industry and private/corporate political donations. That should be clear enough. That includes Republicans, Democrats, Conservatives and New Labour, all of these are right wing parties and have little to do with Socialism. If Del Boy is trying to convince anyone that the UK Labour party is anything to do with Socialism bar a handful of disgruntled back benchers without any influence, he is leading you down the garden path. They are very much in bed with Wall St and the rest of the Financial world, it wasn't very long ago that Gordon Brown was the darling of UK business and the London financiers and could do no wrong.
In other words they will sell of the profitable parts of the capitalist failure and Nationalise the failing bit. This sends the message to greedy businessmen: take risks, get rich and we will pick up the peices and let you off scott free if it all goes Tits up.
In other words they will sell of the profitable parts of the capitalist failure and Nationalise the failing bit. This sends the message to greedy businessmen: take risks, get rich and we will pick up the peices and let you off scott free if it all goes Tits up.
Last edited:
The old communists of New Labour
The black arts of Millbank seem to owe much to the arcane mechanics of the old Kremlin. Will it all change in the party's new HQ?
The Observer 2002.
The influence of the Communist Party on New Labour has been neglected. One day it will be an important subject for a dissertation or PhD by a university graduate. It is not merely the case that a significant number of figures in the Government machine - John Reid, David Triesman, Peter Mandelson, Charlie Whelan to name a few - belonged to the Communist Party of Great Britain in all its King Street grandeur.
(Edit) To these, at cabinet level, add Charles Clarke and Troskyite Tony Mcnulty, to name a few)
Many others - Stephen Byers and Alan Milburn among them - were connected in one way or another with the obscure sub-Marxist organisations that abounded in the 1970s, doing their best to tear down capitalism. Even those, like Jack Straw, who had no Marxist sympathies at all, were obliged to come to terms with communist methods and adversaries in the shadowy internecine struggles of the 1970s and 1980s. It is these methods - as opposed to the now despised Marxist dogma about ownership of the means of production - that have endured to influence the Blair Government. Millbank admittedly borrowed its technology - rebuttal units, the Excalibur computer etc - from the United States. But the obsessive secrecy, centralisation and intolerance of dissent which were such overwhelming characteristics of the Millbank operation reek of the CPGB.
David Triesman was a significant figure of the Euro-communist movement of the 1970s, an attempt to give communism a 'human face'. Thirty years on and he is attempting a comparable exercise with New Labour.
It turns out that 2002 is New Labour's climacteric year. If Clarke and Triesman succeed, and a thousand flowers bloom, they will secure Labour's position as the natural party of government for decades to come. If they fail, they will make the party ungovernable and sow the seeds of long-term decline. Fin.
So much for that ridiculous nonsense about New Labour ( now dead, and Old Labour once more) being in any way right wing. Take a look at that list above, cabinet and EU level. So don't to dismiss my legitimate assessment of the situation. They have held complete power since 1997 and have ruined our political and financial bases in that time, regardless of the global crisis.
So Perseus wishes to lay the claim of blame at the door of the presiding Republican Party, but not at the door of the presiding Labour Party, unless he can re-brand them as right wing. Does he wish to attack or defend this Socialist Party, member of The International Socialists and The Party of European Socialists, on these issues.
I attack them on these political and financial issues. This has nothing whatsoever to do with my personal affiliations - I am an independent if anything. I tend to dislike them all equally, for good reason.
(Furthermore Mr Treisman [ Now Lord Treisman ] is the son of my favourite schoolmaster .)
The black arts of Millbank seem to owe much to the arcane mechanics of the old Kremlin. Will it all change in the party's new HQ?
The Observer 2002.
The influence of the Communist Party on New Labour has been neglected. One day it will be an important subject for a dissertation or PhD by a university graduate. It is not merely the case that a significant number of figures in the Government machine - John Reid, David Triesman, Peter Mandelson, Charlie Whelan to name a few - belonged to the Communist Party of Great Britain in all its King Street grandeur.
(Edit) To these, at cabinet level, add Charles Clarke and Troskyite Tony Mcnulty, to name a few)
Many others - Stephen Byers and Alan Milburn among them - were connected in one way or another with the obscure sub-Marxist organisations that abounded in the 1970s, doing their best to tear down capitalism. Even those, like Jack Straw, who had no Marxist sympathies at all, were obliged to come to terms with communist methods and adversaries in the shadowy internecine struggles of the 1970s and 1980s. It is these methods - as opposed to the now despised Marxist dogma about ownership of the means of production - that have endured to influence the Blair Government. Millbank admittedly borrowed its technology - rebuttal units, the Excalibur computer etc - from the United States. But the obsessive secrecy, centralisation and intolerance of dissent which were such overwhelming characteristics of the Millbank operation reek of the CPGB.
David Triesman was a significant figure of the Euro-communist movement of the 1970s, an attempt to give communism a 'human face'. Thirty years on and he is attempting a comparable exercise with New Labour.
It turns out that 2002 is New Labour's climacteric year. If Clarke and Triesman succeed, and a thousand flowers bloom, they will secure Labour's position as the natural party of government for decades to come. If they fail, they will make the party ungovernable and sow the seeds of long-term decline. Fin.
So much for that ridiculous nonsense about New Labour ( now dead, and Old Labour once more) being in any way right wing. Take a look at that list above, cabinet and EU level. So don't to dismiss my legitimate assessment of the situation. They have held complete power since 1997 and have ruined our political and financial bases in that time, regardless of the global crisis.
So Perseus wishes to lay the claim of blame at the door of the presiding Republican Party, but not at the door of the presiding Labour Party, unless he can re-brand them as right wing. Does he wish to attack or defend this Socialist Party, member of The International Socialists and The Party of European Socialists, on these issues.
I attack them on these political and financial issues. This has nothing whatsoever to do with my personal affiliations - I am an independent if anything. I tend to dislike them all equally, for good reason.
(Furthermore Mr Treisman [ Now Lord Treisman ] is the son of my favourite schoolmaster .)
Last edited:
The Other Guy
Spam King
And conglomorating things in the US into one giant supercorporation (i.e. Macy's, Inc.) is any different than the government nationalizing businesses?