Maybe we should take Eugenics more seriously?

[Old Greg]

I can see what you are trying to say. That you don't purely gain your wealth through things that you own. But you are still voluntarily selling your services for financial gain and that is capitalist. You are wrong that Fascism is the ultimate form of Capitalism. The ultimate form of capitalism would occur under an Anarchic or Libertarian society where only property rights were upheld. Fascism involves a lot of state control and large corporations. Trade unions are also capitalistic, what is not capitalistic is giving them special rights for example, a right to strike, that does not mean strikes and collective bargaining cannot occur though.

Well it is nice to have an interesting and honest conversation.

Now, I sell my labour for money. I am operating within a capitalist society as a worker, not as a capitalist, albeit a very privileged worker whose labour has high market value.

When looking at fascism; it is important not to be confused by the nature of fascist economies in a war-time or even in a total war economy. Equally you cannot understand bourgeois democratic capitalism by looking at Britain in 1942.

The weakness of anarcho-capitalism (from a capitalist viewpoint) is that it does not restrain collective bargaining and industrial action. These necessarily weaken the position of capital against labour and prevent true price discovery of labour by artificially (in market terms) putting upward pressure on wages and related costs.

For capitalism to be freed of these restraints, then those restraints must be repressed by whatever means necessary. Of course that may not be desirable, but it (and we are talking about fascism) is the most effective way of doing so.

[DodgyAgent]

Incorrect.
The demise of the economic system can be traced back to the liberalisation of the City and Wall St. in 1986.
The "socialists" left the existing financial system well alone, although they tried to re-distribute the proceeds to their voting bloc.

Which is a bit like saying that the problems would never have happened if the planet had never started.

Are you saying that the world would be a better and wealthier place had the banking system been left alone?

[ZARDOZ]

The mess is because people bought mortgages they couldn't afford. Don't blame liberalisation. Blame human greed.

There is nothing liberal about bailing out banks, high inflation rates, printing money, fiat currencies, tax and spend either.

They had no option but to bail them out the alternative was so dire. I agree agree the public had a part to play, but liberalisation led to effectively vandalism of the whole economic system via previously untested methods, e.g. credit swaping/parcelling up of debt, allowing banks to have little cash reserve in ratio to lending. Some players not admitedly knowing what they were doing others more certain a crash would happen, but quite happy to jeopardise everything for short term gains (bailing out before the mess became evident).

This cannot be allowed to happen again.

[DodgyAgent]

They had no option but to bail them out the alternative was so dire. I agree agree the public had a part to play, but liberalisation led to effectively vandalism of the whole economic system via previously untested methods, e.g. credit swaping/parcelling up of debt, allowing banks to have little cash reserve in ratio to lending. Some players not admitedly knowing what they were doing others more certain a crash would happen, but quite happy to jeopardise everything for short term gains (bailing out before the mess became evident).

This cannot be allowed to happen again.

I will go with that.

[sasguru]

I will go with that.

Well you agree with Zardoz, but what I am saying is all those things he describes were allowed in the Big Bang of 1986, under your God, Thatcher.

[sasguru]

Are you saying that the world would be a better and wealthier place had the banking system been left alone?

The Germans didn't see the need to create a financial casino ( although some of their banks were too stupid to resisist and set up branches in the City) and look at them now.

[EternalOptimist]

The Germans didn't see the need to create a financial casino ( although some of their banks were too stupid to resisist and set up branches in the City) and look at them now.

the germans this and the germans that...blah,,blah

thats the problem with eugenics. we need to repatriate the genics and get back to Ukgenics

[Robinho]

They had no option but to bail them out the alternative was so dire. I agree agree the public had a part to play, but liberalisation led to effectively vandalism of the whole economic system via previously untested methods, e.g. credit swaping/parcelling up of debt, allowing banks to have little cash reserve in ratio to lending. Some players not admitedly knowing what they were doing others more certain a crash would happen, but quite happy to jeopardise everything for short term gains (bailing out before the mess became evident).

This cannot be allowed to happen again.

Essentially it is all self-regulating in the end though. What we have just got is a huge learning lesson in the age of financial deregulation. Does that mean we should slap all the regulations back on? No, we should just think more carefully about getting that crazy mortgage on a pauper's wage. In addition the government shouldn't deficit spend during the boom years.

[DodgyAgent]

Well you agree with Zardoz, but what I am saying is all those things he describes were allowed in the Big Bang of 1986, under your God, Thatcher.

Fair enough. Are you therefore saying that the financial system should have been left as it is? If the Global economy banks had been still under the pre liberalisation control of government would economies of the world still be as affluent as they are? Or upon liberalising the banks should it not have been the governments responsibility to keep them in check?

I am quite happy to concede that the demise of economies has been as a result of Thatcher inspired liberalisation of the financial system, but this point is a diversion from my arguments about how tax is spent. I will maintain that no matter what the available wealth figure may be and no matter how much it is taxed it wont make the blindest difference to the effectiveness of the public services.

The collapse of the banking system has now become an excuse for the left to continue with shoddy public services arguing theat the cuts are making it impossible to deliver them. this is despite the fact that they werenever being delivered anyway

[Scoobos]

would economies of the world still be as affluent as they are?

But thats the problem in a nutshell. The "economies of the world" are NOT affluent - it's all based on projection and BS from the financial sector.