New World Order has gone mainstream

Current Events, World Discussion, Opinions etc
66 posts Page 1 of 3
ATREYU
Posts: 1190
Joined: Thu May 09, 2002 2:07 pm


noitnemretsim
Posts: 466
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 9:46 am


Nice find vaughan.
tripn
Posts: 6721
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2002 5:28 pm


kevin rudd wrote :
"The time has come, off the back of the current crisis, to proclaim that the great neo-liberal experiment of the past 30 years has failed, that the emperor has no clothes," he writes of those who placed their faith in the corrective powers of the market.

"Neo-liberalism and the free-market fundamentalism it has produced has been revealed as little more than personal greed dressed up as an economic philosophy. And, ironically, it now falls to social democracy to prevent liberal capitalism from cannibalising itself."


what a fucking load of shit!! there has not been any free markets or laissez faire capitalism in existence anywhere in the world which caused this. if there had this whole thing never would have happened. the neoliberals are just as interventionist as everyone else. it was government meddling in the money supply and artificially low interest rates set by the reserve banks which caused this mess. to blame it on free markets is a fucking joke. but then again, these politicians are well aware of this and are using this situation as a way to expand state power and private banking control even further. that was kind of the whole point. but it still gives me the shits to hear them blame it on free markets when there never was such a thing.
boondocksaint
Posts: 78
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2008 12:37 am


In response to Atreyu: so is this what you had in mind by the new world order? The coming together of the world's major leaders; them pledging to work together on some key financial/economic issues, the most significant agreement being to prop up developing nations via the IMF; and a declaration of a new world order?
I could have sworn that this was not the first G20 meeting.. that the world has been addressing all sorts of issues on a global scale for some time. What has changed? And perhaps more importantly: what is so insidious about this new/old world G 20 meeting anyway? Are the Chinese, the Russians, the Saudis and the South Africans all in on this 'we must bow down to our lords, the bankers' thing?
phoney
Posts: 1279
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2003 4:46 pm


Why it's wrong to blame the rich bankers:

STONES thrown through a banker’s windows in Edinburgh, workers “bossnapping” executives in France, retrospective 90% tax rates proposed in Washington, and now a riot in London as G20 leaders arrived for their summit (see article). A sea change in social attitudes that could have profound effects on politics and the world economy is under way.

The rich are certainly not the only targets in the current populist backlash. Frightened by the downturn, people are furious with politicians, central bankers and immigrants. But a rising wave of anger is directed against the new “malefactors of great wealth”. Today’s villains are a larger and more global bunch than the handful of American robber barons Teddy Roosevelt denounced a century ago; and most of them are bankers and fund managers, rather than owners of trusts and railroads. Yet the themes are similar to those at the end of that previous gilded age: rising inequality—the top 0.1% of Americans earned 20 times the income of the bottom 90% in 1979 and 77 times in 2006—and a sense that the greedy rich have cheated decent working people of their rightful share of the pie.

Some of this cheating has been of an old familiar sort: building Ponzi schemes and bribing politicians to secure favourable deals. There are greyer areas, in which the rich hide their cash in tax havens and get tax law written to their advantage—witness the indefensible treatment of private-equity profits. But what makes the rich’s behaviour so galling for many critics is that their two greatest crimes were committed in broad daylight, as they were part of the system itself.
The two great cheats

The first charge is that the rich created a new form of heads-I-win-tails-you-lose capitalism. Traders and fund managers got huge rewards for speculating with other people’s money, but when they failed the parent company, the client and ultimately the taxpayer had to pay the bill. Monetary policy contributed to this asymmetry of risk: when markets faltered central banks usually rescued them by cutting interest rates.

The second charge is that the bankers and fund managers were not doing anything useful. Unlike the “deserving” rich entrepreneurs who set up Microsoft and Google, the “undeserving” traders and brokers just shuffled money around the system to nobody’s profit but their own. The faster the money went round, the larger the financial sector loomed in the rich countries’ economies. At its peak it contributed 41% of domestic American corporate profits, more than double the rate two decades ago. As finance grew, the banks got ever bigger—too big to fail, eventually, so when they tottered taxpayers had to prop them up. Far from epitomising capitalism, the undeserving rich undermined it: it was socialism for the wealthy.

These two charges run together, but the second has much less justification. Enormous though the cost of bailing out the banks has been, there is nothing inherently undeserving about finance; even in their flawed state, more liquid markets have brought huge benefits to the rest of the economy. The lower cost of capital has made it easier for industry to invest, innovate and protect itself against interest and exchange-rate risk. Trying to single out financiers from entrepreneurs is a fool’s errand: you will end up hurting both.

The heads-I-win charge is not entirely proven, either: some of the people who ran banks did lose when they went bust. Yet even a newspaper as inherently pro-business as this one has to admit that there was something rotten in finance: the basic capitalist bargain, under which genuine risktakers are allowed to garner huge rewards, seems a poor one if taxpayers are landed with a huge bill for it all. Hence the anger.
A time for correction and brown paper bags

Periods of excess, when inequality has grown, tend to be followed by eras of reform: Roosevelt bust the trusts and shortly afterwards Congress moved towards introducing a federal income tax. Part of the genius of capitalism is its ability to adjust to disruption from within and attacks from without.

Indeed, the system is already beginning to correct itself. As our special report this week points out, the rich are not as rich as they were: some $10 trillion, around a quarter of the wealthy’s assets, has been lost. Inequality will decline. Investment banks and hedge funds are shrinking; private-equity groups are struggling to finance takeovers. Having discovered how volatile markets can be, banks will be less keen on trading in the future. There is even a correction going on in conspicuous consumption: Net-a-porter, a pricey website, offers to deliver designer outfits to its customers in brown paper bags.

The market’s self-correction will not be enough, however. Higher taxes will eventually be inevitable, since so many governments have lurched heavily into deficit. But politicians must tread carefully. Tax rises right away would be a rotten idea, since for the moment fiscal stimulus is needed. And even when governments raise the money, they should first get rid of deductions and reverse unmeritocratic measures (such as George Bush’s repeal of America’s death tax) rather than jacking up income-tax rates to punitive levels. Squeeze the rich until the pips squeak, and the juice goes out of the economy.

As for heads-I-win capitalism, the problem of asymmetric risk should shrink, because the rule changes needed to make the financial system safer will also remove unwarranted profits. Contra-cyclical capital requirements, forcing banks to build more reserves during good times, will leave them less cash to splurge on bonuses. Many of the sweetest sources of profit sprang up in the cracks between regulatory systems; governments are now filling in these gaps. If central banks focus on asset markets when they rise as well as when they fall, they will remove much of the froth. Treat a bank that becomes too big to fail like a utility, and it will make less money.

Curbing the excesses of wealth, then, will be a side effect of regulations designed to make capitalism work better. Such measures will not provide the lyrics to revolutionary anthems, but they are going to be better than going after the wealthy. The rich are an easy target. But when you try to bash them, you usually end up punching yourself in the nose.


http://www.economist.com/opinion/displa ... extfeature
ionized
Posts: 1474
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2005 4:20 pm


Interesting article. He has a point, the successful employees of banks (ie: the undeserving rich) probably are not to blame for the financial crisis. It is the system itself that is to blame and needs changing. Bringing it back to the original post, I don't think global socialism or governance is the answer. Creating more government to serve the system that is causing problems is ludicrous. It is the underlying system itself that is causing problems and needs reforming.

It seems like a huge and rather conveniently well timed over reaction to a problem that has plagued modern society. The mis-conception that the markets are an unavoidable and necessary reality for channeling human greed to foster human growth rather than seeing them as what they are... a useful tool in some transactions but one that can distort and warp the perception of wealth in a fiat system.
Shane77
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2007 8:12 am


what a fucking load of shit!! there has not been any free markets or laissez faire capitalism in existence anywhere in the world which caused this. if there had this whole thing never would have happened. the neoliberals are just as interventionist as everyone else. it was government meddling in the money supply and artificially low interest rates set by the reserve banks which caused this mess. to blame it on free markets is a fucking joke. but then again, these politicians are well aware of this and are using this situation as a way to expand state power and private banking control even further. that was kind of the whole point. but it still gives me the shits to hear them blame it on free markets when there never was such a thing.[/quote]

Your spot on with everything you've said here mate. The reserve banks have created this crisis with their fiat currencies by inflating the money supply to unbelievable proportions.
Pure__Ignorance
Posts: 198
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 3:21 pm


ionized wrote :
I don't think global socialism or governance is the answer. Creating more government to serve the system that is causing problems is ludicrous. It is the underlying system itself that is causing problems and needs reforming.

It seems like a huge and rather conveniently well timed over reaction to a problem that has plagued modern society. The mis-conception that the markets are an unavoidable and necessary reality for channeling human greed to foster human growth rather than seeing them as what they are... a useful tool in some transactions but one that can distort and warp the perception of wealth in a fiat system.


Too right. But if you want to control the world then having the people who are going to be in charge of that global socialist governance by the balls is a great asset.
SamuraiJack
Posts: 10043
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2002 11:56 am


tripn wrote :
what a fucking load of shit!! there has not been any free markets or laissez faire capitalism in existence anywhere in the world which caused this. if there had this whole thing never would have happened. the neoliberals are just as interventionist as everyone else. it was government meddling in the money supply and artificially low interest rates set by the reserve banks which caused this mess. to blame it on free markets is a fucking joke. but then again, these politicians are well aware of this and are using this situation as a way to expand state power and private banking control even further. that was kind of the whole point. but it still gives me the shits to hear them blame it on free markets when there never was such a thing.


Oh right. Because there I was thinking that the subprime mortgage crisis was caused by banks giving loans to people at rates they couldn't repay, which then crashed, leaving them with huge amounts of toxi debt.

So...really, it was the lack of controls that caused this.

Of course, I could explain why free markets and pure laissez faire capitalism is a policy only absolute fucking idiots with no understanding of anything would endorse, but these days I find it more interesting to listen to arguments people put up for such complete piles of utter bullshit.

Hilarious really.
tripn
Posts: 6721
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2002 5:28 pm


SamuraiJack wrote :

Oh right. Because there I was thinking that the subprime mortgage crisis was caused by banks giving loans to people at rates they couldn't repay, which then crashed, leaving them with huge amounts of toxi debt.


partly. but this would never have happened in a truly free market. you forgot to mention that..

A) the state was responsible the oversupply of money which led to such practices. less money = more prudency = no lending to people who cannot pay back or do not have collateral = no property bubble.

B) the state forced banks to lend to low income earners as part of their "every american should be able to afford a home" political tactics to win votes.

C) The credit rating agencies which gave all these junk bonds AAA risk ratings were government run.

D) It is the government which is now sucking the remaining wealth and capital out of society, devaluing everyones money or taxing the future generations in order to hand it all out to the bankers who they said caused the mess in the first place.
traveller
Posts: 819
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 11:03 am


^^

i was under the impression that it isnt the state which controls the
print money supply but the reserve bank?

(edit: i wanted to add the example from that money masters doco,
about how in america the gov started printing the greenback to get back
control of its print money supply, which the federal reserve bank eventually
put a stop to and now they just use federal reserve notes again)


also on a side note i was wondering, who do u think would print the money in an anarcho capitalist (total free market) system?

thanks!
interesting topic this one, as it affects us all in the end...
tripn
Posts: 6721
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2002 5:28 pm


traveller wrote :
^^

i was under the impression that it isnt the state which controls the
print money supply but the reserve bank?


same shit really. the state sells bonds to the fed which creates the money out nothing. the private banking interests that control the fed control the money supply and the interest rates but this wouldnt change if the government ran the show. technically the official reason for having a reserve bank is so that the government isnt capable of printing money at will to spend on wars and various other political projects to please voters and special interest groups. but instead it just borrows money from the fed whenever it needs it which is money that is printed or created from nothing, the only difference is that the money that the fed loans to the govt it charges interest on it which the taxpayer ends up paying to private banking interests. brilliant little scam really.

traveller wrote :
also on a side note i was wondering, who do u think would print the money in an anarcho capitalist (total free market) system?


In a free society the money would supply would be created by private companies and backed by something tangible like gold or silver. It would be a hell of a lot more stable as well since different currencies would be competing with each other on the free market and people would actually have a choice in what currency or commodity they could use as a means of exchange. so whoever is creating the money would want it to be as stable as possible so that people have faith in its ability to function as a store of wealth. If they start creating too much of it or allowing it to be easily forged then the natural laws of supply and demand will see it lose value and cause people to sell it off and buy some other private currency. This happens now to an extent with people buying and selling different currencies on the international forex markets however the average joe who is earning, saving and spending money in any particular currency has absolutely no choice but to be paid in and hold the currency of the particularly country he lives in. this lack of choice is of course enforced through the threat of violence from the state which created "legal tender" laws in order to force people to use their particular form of fiat currency and nothing else. this pretty much puts the average person in a position where the government/federal reserve system can erode the value of their money at will through inflation, which is actually a much more sneaky and less direct form of taxation. none of this would not be possible in a situation where people were not forced to accept one particular currency and the value of money was determined by the free market like any other commodity.
Pete_Paranoid
Posts: 2332
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2003 2:45 am


Image

Pete_Paranoid
Posts: 2332
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2003 2:45 am


bargirl
Posts: 277
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2002 3:11 pm


What gets my goat (not swine) is when will the so called third world become first world or a developed country. I have been around on this earth for 35 years and its fucked that back in the day they were called that and they still are today. Who governs this shit really.
itchytriggerniggerfingers
Posts: 2288
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 9:39 pm


bargirl wrote :
What gets my goat (not swine) is when will the so called third world become first world or a developed country. I have been around on this earth for 35 years and its fucked that back in the day they were called that and they still are today. Who governs this shit really.



Its partly to do with the GDP of the country. So, that rests upon a combination of government, industry & people. However, usually people in underdeveloped or developing countries don't have a great deal of money so its kinda hard to get started. Also most large companies probably have their base outside of developing countries, so the profit leaves the country.
bargirl
Posts: 277
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2002 3:11 pm


and to mention their governments are corrupt
tripn
Posts: 6721
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2002 5:28 pm


bargirl wrote :
What gets my goat (not swine) is when will the so called third world become first world or a developed country. I have been around on this earth for 35 years and its fucked that back in the day they were called that and they still are today. Who governs this shit really.


most of the time the politicians in control of third world countries are put in power and backed by western governments and the private corporate and banking interests that dictate their policies in order to keep the population poor whilst they loot the resources of the country. its part of the the emperialistic, mercantilist divide and conquer strategy which has been happening for a long time. these poor countries are mostly up to their eyeballs in debt to foreign governments or the world bank, IMF system and what little productivity the country has is stolen from the people through taxes and paid as interest only on huge unrepayable debts rather than used for social services like hospitals, education, infrastructure, etc.

every now and then some well intentioned leader will take power usually through populist sentiment and then will proceed to be ousted by the CIA or left to completely fuck things up through implementing shithouse economic policies (usually bordering on full blown socialism), inflating the currency and generally destroying what little wealth and productivity was there to begin with.

the solution = get rid of all governments and just let people go about their business without restriction. :)
phoney
Posts: 1279
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2003 4:46 pm


bargirl wrote :
What gets my goat (not swine) is when will the so called third world become first world or a developed country. I have been around on this earth for 35 years and its fucked that back in the day they were called that and they still are today. Who governs this shit really.


Well they dont really use the terms first world, second world and third world anymore (since the end of the second world - USSR) It's now industrialized, newly industrialized and developing.

Some countries do manage to get themselves out of the developing world; Brazil, Mexico, China, India, Malaysia, Philipines, Turkey, Thailand, Panama etc... Although those have still got a bit of a way to go to lift their poor out of poverty, but they're getting there.

Corruption is the biggest factor hindering growth in most developing countries, as well as debt... Ridding the word of corruption & having temporary debt moratoriums would be a much better solution than anarchism imo. :)
tripn
Posts: 6721
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2002 5:28 pm


phoney wrote :

Corruption is the biggest factor hindering growth in most developing countries, as well as debt... Ridding the word of corruption & having temporary debt moratoriums would be a much better solution than anarchism imo. :)


no government = no corruption
no government = no collective debt
kathmandu
Posts: 921
Joined: Wed Nov 06, 2002 12:05 pm



"We base all our experiments on the capacity of mankind for self government." Reagan "Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American Revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves."
phoney
Posts: 1279
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2003 4:46 pm


tripn wrote :
phoney wrote :

Corruption is the biggest factor hindering growth in most developing countries, as well as debt... Ridding the word of corruption & having temporary debt moratoriums would be a much better solution than anarchism imo. :)


no government = no corruption
no government = no collective debt


no government = doesnt work

unless you can show me any success stories?

Mind you im all for small government and individual freedoms!
tripn
Posts: 6721
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2002 5:28 pm


well its never been given a shot. however governments have proven over and over again to be the worst perpetrators when it comes to eroding freedom as well as causing millions of deaths and immense destruction of wealth.
phoney
Posts: 1279
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2003 4:46 pm


Well it has actually, Somalia hasnt had a functioning government since 1991. Here's a little taste of what it looks like:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/p ... html/1.stm

People can be power hungry tyrants government or no government.
66 posts Page 1 of 3

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests