Broon Demolished

[old_scrote]

then later a Keegan.

 

Had one of those meself Stu..looked like a head full of pubes

[mannananscloak]

then later a Keegan.

 

Had one of those meself Stu..looked like a head full of pubes

Me too.......The shame.

[homarus]

Good speech , a bit like a 21st century political version of the "Emperors new clothes"!

[Albert Tatlock]

A good speech. Though I prefer

.

[Slim]

Good speech , a bit like a 21st century political version of the "Emperors new clothes"!

 

Apart from the factual inaccuracies?

[keyboarder]

a Keegan.

Had one of those meself Stu

Me too.

 

Ar Ay Lads - Calm Down.........

[thesultanofsheight]

These bail-outs do not represent socialism, just socialisation of risk and debt. It isn't capitalism; it isn't socialism.

 

Nonsense. What we are actually seeing signs of now, and Obama's inertia since he has taken power is living proof of this, is the growing acceptance by the political establishment that they do not control their own economies, and that they do not even control employment in their own countries. They won't even be able to control tax rates soon as the costs of these bail outs increase.

 

If the global economy asks for more money to keep banks, car companies and manufacturing companies from folding then governments have to pay up as the social consequences (political turmoil, mass unemployment, riots, civil unrest, bankrupcy of the economy) could be so extreme that the political establishment in any given country could be swept away. The globalised economy has actually taken the power out of the hands of democratically elected leaders and the taxpayer has to keep on paying up otherwise unemployment will skyrocket and the economies will be bankrupted anyway.

 

The one exception is China which has allowed the market to flourish purely on concessions and favours granted by government. It is one of the few big economies that has shied away from the unfettered "free market" philosophy and where control of virtually everything still rests with government in one way or another. They are one of the few political and economic systems that will remain intact through all of this. Start buying China because in 20 years time you'll be very, very wealthy.

 

The UK and US are now having to start mirroring this degree of state control over the free market so its nationalise the banks through the back door and get government back calling the shots before its too late.

[Sebrof]

These bail-outs do not represent socialism, just socialisation of risk and debt. It isn't capitalism; it isn't socialism.

 

Nonsense. What we are actually seeing signs of now, and Obama's inertia since he has taken power is living proof of this, is the growing acceptance by the political establishment that they do not control their own economies, and that they do not even control employment in their own countries. They won't even be able to control tax rates soon as the costs of these bail outs increase.

 

If the global economy asks for more money to keep banks, car companies and manufacturing companies from folding then governments have to pay up as the social consequences (political turmoil, mass unemployment, riots, civil unrest, bankrupcy of the economy) could be so extreme that the political establishment in any given country could be swept away. The globalised economy has actually taken the power out of the hands of democratically elected leaders and the taxpayer has to keep on paying up otherwise unemployment will skyrocket and the economies will be bankrupted anyway.

 

The one exception is China which has allowed the market to flourish purely on concessions and favours granted by government. It is one of the few big economies that has shied away from the unfettered "free market" philosophy and where control of virtually everything still rests with government in one way or another. They are one of the few political and economic systems that will remain intact through all of this. Start buying China because in 20 years time you'll be very, very wealthy.

 

The UK and US are now having to start mirroring this degree of state control over the free market so its nationalise the banks through the back door and get government back calling the shots before its too late.

 

I don't entirely disagree with this analysis. Unfettered free enterprise is the law of the jungle, and the big mistake of the past few years was to think that the market would flourish without any checks. In fact, the big corporations have been taken over by spivs, and, as you say, their enormous size and global reach mean they are out of control.

 

China's great strength, like America's, is that it is big enough to have local companies that are large enough to dominate world markets. It's another reason why we need a more integrated Europe.

 

But getting a more integrated Europe that is both effective and reasonably incorrupt is going to be a major task.

 

S

[Jimcalagon]

It all goes to show that self-regulation never works. And that's why anarchy would never work either - people are greedy bastards.

[Jimcalagon]

I was a Toryboy Thatcherite

 

Should have guessed.

[Slim]

Nonsense. What we are actually seeing signs of now, and Obama's inertia since he has taken power is living proof of this, is the growing acceptance by the political establishment that they do not control their own economies, and that they do not even control employment in their own countries. They won't even be able to control tax rates soon as the costs of these bail outs increase.

 

I maintain that the root of the problem was government intervention, not a lack of it.

 

This is a bust that has followed a boom fuelled by the actions of the governments and central banks to provide cheap credit, discount tax policies to encourage rapid growth and the removal of any sort of inflationary controls on house pricing.

[Tweek]

I maintain that the root of the problem was government intervention, not a lack of it.

It was those underpants' stealing Gnomes that ruined the economy. Eeeeeeek!

[thesultanofsheight]

Nonsense. What we are actually seeing signs of now, and Obama's inertia since he has taken power is living proof of this, is the growing acceptance by the political establishment that they do not control their own economies, and that they do not even control employment in their own countries. They won't even be able to control tax rates soon as the costs of these bail outs increase.

 

I maintain that the root of the problem was government intervention, not a lack of it.

 

This is a bust that has followed a boom fuelled by the actions of the governments and central banks to provide cheap credit, discount tax policies to encourage rapid growth and the removal of any sort of inflationary controls on house pricing.

 

and I maintain that you are totally wrong. The government had no plan to push cheap credit - it happened because of deregulation and low interest rates (set by the BoE independent of the UK government) enabling companies to take higher risks to make the higher profits they needed. In fact Tony Blairs' complete adoption of the US government laissez fair style approach to running the economy is why we are in this mess. George Bush and Bill Clinton effectively did jack shit about anything when it came to government intervention - in regulation or the economy (or in Clinton's case anything really) and everyone else quickly copied that model. Soon unregulated and unchecked businessess found new ways to generate vast profits - sub prime being the biggest case in point where they just found mugs to lend to and mugs to buy the debt off them and made a slice in the middle.

 

You also had stock and housing markets that bore no relation to reality because they didn't have to as the normal checks and balances were not required to be done. Its was the same "new paradigm" bullshit that we were told about the dot com companies. Price earnings ratios were old hat because ..... err well this is all so new paradigm and you don't understand it because its no longer about earnings its about growth and market share. Then 2 years later its - whoops the markets gone tits up because companies that have no earnings go bust when they can't access new capital.

 

Just like has happened here in the IOM the UK government never had any real grip on the economy or economic drivers they just asked no questions and spent the money whilst it was being generated by everyone else. Almost all the jobs Brown has created since he came into power are in the public sector, he just took the money and spent it and has left Britain with a cost base in terms of top heavy government and local authorities that it can't possibly afford and the same is going to happen here really soon.

 

Its lack of government control that is at the root of this and this is where China and the Asian economies will come out of it much quicker than us as they are still pulling the strings behind the market.

[Albert Tatlock]

Nonsense. What we are actually seeing signs of now, and Obama's inertia since he has taken power is living proof of this, is the growing acceptance by the political establishment that they do not control their own economies, and that they do not even control employment in their own countries. They won't even be able to control tax rates soon as the costs of these bail outs increase.

 

I maintain that the root of the problem was government intervention, not a lack of it.

 

This is a bust that has followed a boom fuelled by the actions of the governments and central banks to provide cheap credit, discount tax policies to encourage rapid growth and the removal of any sort of inflationary controls on house pricing.

 

and I maintain that you are totally wrong. The government had no plan to push cheap credit - it happened because of deregulation and low interest rates (set by the BoE independent of the UK government). In fact Tony Blairs' complete adoption of the US government laissez fair style approach to running the economy is why we are in this mess. George Bush and Bill Clinton effectively did jack shit about anything when it came to government intervention in regulation, or the economy and everyone else copied that mode. Soon unregulated and unchecked businessess found new ways to generate vast profits - sub prime being the biggest case in point where they just found mugs to lend to and mugs to buy the debt off them and made a slice in the middle.

 

You also had stock and housing markets that bore no relation to reality because they didn't have to as the normal checks and balances were not required to be done. Its was the same "new paradigm" bullshit that were were told about the dot com companies. Price earnings ratios were old hat because ..... err well this is all so new paradigm and you don't understand it.

 

Just like has happened here in the IOM the government never had any real grip on the economy or economic drivers they just asked no questions and spent the money whilst it was being generated by everyone else.

What he said.

[bluemonday]

Todays Times.

George Soros: Britain may have to seek IMF rescue

Kerrrrching!