New name for a new economy?
Do we need a new name for the kind of economy we live in today? I ask because it's becoming a bit of an issue.
We started the week celebrating the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. It was, everyone agreed, ironic to be marking the fall of communism, when less than a year ago capitalism itself had seemed to be on its knees.
Capitalism has survived. But it's not the capitalism we thought we had. When you consider the scale and scope of government involvement in most of the advanced economies right now, "free market capitalism" seems a bit of a stretch.
Today we had confirmation that the eurozone economy had moved out of recession in the third quarter. But the public sector was almost entirely responsible for the modest growth that the major European countries have achieved since the spring.
The last 20 years were supposed to be about the end of the era of big government. And yet, public borrowing in the leading "free market" economies - Britain and the US - has never been as high as it is today, outside times of war.
You might see that as the statistical counterpart to the intellectual journey that economists have been forced to make as a result of the crisis, which I discussed on my radio programme last week (Analysis: The Economist's New Clothes).
Mainstream economists didn't assume that markets - or their participants - were perfect. But for decades they did assume, in effect, that they were good enough: that markets were competitive enough, and people were rational and well-informed enough, for market-led outcome usually to turn out best. Especially in matters of finance.
Now, it turns out that real-life financial markets were much, much, messier than they thought - and much much worse at self-regulation. The biggest short-term consequence of that mistake is that the government has suddenly become responsible for most of our economic growth.
In the US, economists agree that without the federal stimulus package, the US would still technically be in recession.
We're getting used to this post-crisis landscape. But don't forget to be surprised that decades of the "free market" have ended up here.
John Cassidy tells the story in How Markets Fail: the Logic of Economics Calamities. There have been plenty of books about the crisis landing on my desk in recent weeks, but Cassidy's is the only one I've seen that pulls together the what and the why quite so clearly. He covers some of the same ground as my programme, but in much more depth.
He reminds us that Adam Smith himself was very sceptical about leaving the financial system to its own devices. So was another fan of free markets, John Stuart Mill.
As Cassidy comments:
"[T]he combination of a Fed that can print money, deposit insurance, and a Congress that can authorize bailouts provides an extensive safety net for big financial firms. In such an environment, pursuing a policy of easy money plus deregulation doesn't amount to free market economics: it's a form of crony capitalism."
The outcome, he says, it's not just unfair - it doesn't work.
John Lanchester, the London Review of Books' chronicler of the crisis, said recently that "bankocracy" might be a better name for the current system.
If you think that sounds inflammatory, remember that Mervyn King, Lord Turner and Martin Wolf of the FT have all made essentially the same point. Unless the rules of the game change fundamentally, it's not really capitalism that we have today. Especially not for banks.
Any other ideas for a new name?
I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~14~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
The science of bubble economics.
It's an old chestnut, but next time it will be different........
The FT had the banner "The Newspaper of the New Economy" on its front page during the dot.com boom. The banner was deleted after the dot.com bust.
We can model chaos, supposedly, but we can't spot a bubble when we're standing on top of it.
Bubble economies have been growing and popping for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. One day we will learn from past experience, maybe. Perhaps someone should write (yet another) book about the most repeated subject in economics.......
Complain about this comment
Errr... how about:
1) "The Fictious economy"
2) "The privatised profits and socialsed risk model"
3) "The economic kleptocracy"
4) "The pointless treadmill of consumerist boredom through debt peonage economy"
5) "The State sponsored wealth disparity creation model"
6) "The Stockholm Syndrome model of economic serfdom"
Complain about this comment
Just a few suggestions for an alternative to bankocracy:
Kleptoforarchy - rule by those who steal taxes
Plutoforarchy - rule by those who grow rich from taxes
raidiokrematarchy - rule by easy money
trapezokleptarchy - rule by thieving bankers
or even trapezokleptoforarchy - rule by thieving bankers who steal taxes
and best of all, if unpronounceable by anyone who isn't Greek (and probably not even by them):
ekfugolethrokleptoforarchy - rule by those who have escaped ruin by stealing taxes
Not that you will find any of them in a dictionary
Complain about this comment
SCRAAAPITALLISM
Complain about this comment
STATE SPONGSIRED SCRAPITALLISM
Complain about this comment
Socialism for the rich. Not a new name, but appropriate.
Complain about this comment
At last main stream media is finally commenting on the fact that the so called free market we've been in for the past 30 years is not in fact a free market at all.
John Cassidy explains the moral hazard that has littered our system for decades very well. I'm glad the role that central banks have played is getting the attention it deserves.
The fact that the Fed, the most powerful central bank in our system, is a private entity answerable only to the banking oligarchy that controls it highlights the bankocracy/corporatocracy/crony capitalist problems we have.
And in terms of bubble economics, bubbles and busts wouldn't exist to the extent they do today if central banks (i.e. the financial oligarchs) didn't have a monopoly over the money supply. Every bubble in history has resulted from a central authority artificially inflating the money supply or promoting the use paper contracts instead of physical money. J.P. Morgan himself famously said "give me control of a nation's money supply, and I care not who runs that nation".
Complain about this comment
Kleptocracy?
Complain about this comment
How about bentoverandshaftedism...or shaftedocracy.
Complain about this comment
How about .. financial UK onomy....everheady for the next great leap forward onto any AAAbandoned AAA's hole shoe horning it courtesy the taxpayer to inkfinity and beyond ....or simply Comuseumimism
Complain about this comment
Possible names for the current global financial (non)system:
taxhavenshavemorefunandtheplebspayforitocracy
thelawisforplebsonlycracy
etc., etc, etc,
More than 10 Trillion US Dollars are estimated to be stashed and hidden away in tax havens globally. This is corrupting the whole global financial system and enables tax evasion, fraud and corruption on a gigantic scale. When will the western 'democracies' stop this deplorable injustice?
Please read more about the malfunctioning parts of the
global financial system here:
http://globalinsights.wordpress.com/
Complain about this comment
Stephanie,
You are making the classic mistake of thinking this is anything other than Capitalism. I know there are phrases like anarcho-capitalism, corporate capitalism, crony capitalism, finance capitalism, laissez-faire capitalism, technocapitalism, Neo-Capitalism, late capitalism, post-capitalism, state capitalism and state monopoly capitalism.
However these are all simply various efforts to 'tame the beast' of Capitalism. The underlying principles are the same in all, it's just a varying degree of intervention by the state - to either improve (ha!) or - more commonly - to prevent disaster (as we have right now).
Nobody has ever controlled Capitalism - and therefore it has not moved into a new form. Many have claimed they control it - like Gordon Brown, Maggie Thatcher - but in reality they were merely passengers on a runaway train.
The Economists, Government and media do a great job of re-inventing things, and no less than with Capitalism. You see many people in society need to believe there is someone in control - for without that feeling there would be panic. Hence the need for Capitalism to re-invent itself every time it collapses.
It's always amusing to see the advocates of 'small Government' scrabbling around at these times for an explanation of 'where it all went wrong'. Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan were keen on self-regulation - and look how that turned out. We now have the party of 'light touch' vying for the position of Government - who traditionally were the 'heavy regulators' - and their biggest crime? - not enough regulation! - what a strange situation.
I think you have to look at the Economy like the law looks at it's citizens. 80% of people could live without laws - because they are guided by their morals - but the other 20% are unable to grasp their actions ultimately 'ruin it for the rest'.
However under the repeated attempts of Government to allow Capitalism to have free reign and self-regulation, this group of 20% gets more and more powerful by the day - encouraging more to follow their behaviour, until too many people act in that manner and we have social breakdown.
Complain about this comment
"Do we need a new name for the kind of economy we live in today?"
Stephanie, we already have a word: "Mugabenomics"!
I.e.
Destroying your own country's industry.
Printing more money when it run out.
Blaming problems on other countries.
Complain about this comment
OK, it was a 10 years from Glass Seagull repeal of free market sponsored by debt ridden troughing goverments their fraudulent cronies/peers, financials and regulators who cannot wait for their next fix of money, an experience that is currently being repeated because the relationships are so incestious their is no other way out than TRY to reflate the bubble keeping the whole shower of C**p in place for our best outcome.
MOD on Bonus, I Don't BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEElieeeve it
Complain about this comment
We have not been living in a true free market, that is the problem.
When Big Business can reap all the upside benefits of their risk taking but can pass on the risk to the taxpayer (too ig to fail, retail deposit guarantees) then I hardly call that Free Market. The old adage: Privatise the Profits, Nationalise the Losses.
A true free market is where risk is not cushioned by state protection.
If a market was allowed to be truly free, I have every faith they would self correct themselves without bringing entire countires to their knees.
Don't blame the markets, they will do as much or as little as they are allowed to get away with, blame the regulators.
If you repealed all laws on theft/robbery, you would expect the rates iof those crimes to go up as the reward far outweighs the consequential risk. Same principal applies to the Banksters. They will get away with what they are legally able to do.
Same applies with off shore tax havens, if you want people to pay tax in the UK, fix the legislation to close the loopholes, dont whine when people use legitimate accounting tactics to minimize their tax take.
You can always rely on Banksters to look out for themselves, thats where good governance is needed to temper their excesses.
This crisis was caused at its root by bad governance.
Complain about this comment
In deference to the late JJ, I guess this blog wouldn't be complete without the accusation of:
Anarcho-capitalism: anarchistic/Trotskyite free market capitalism
As you suggest Stephanie, this is not the free market envisaged by Adam Smith:
What we have is "exactly the opposite of what Adam Smith, and Ricardo and the classical economists defined as a free market. Classical economics defined a free market as one that is free of overhead charges, free of unnecessary charges of production, free of watered stock. Today a free market means that predators are free to extort any price from the public, they are free to deregulate, free to lie to consumers, free to exploit, free to load any company they want down with debt, and basically lead (us) to a world of debt peonage." Michael Hudson.
Indeed Galbraith was all too vocal in pointing out Smith's warnings of separating (stock) ownership with (enterprise) management.
It'll all end in tears.
Complain about this comment
'Managed capitalism'?
That puts the blame for the successive messes where I (a former governemnt economist) think it belongs; with those failing to manage the system prudently and properly.
Successive governemnts in many countries have been consciously trying to manage capitalism ever since 1945. Nowadays, North Korea and Cuba are about the only exceptions. The new dimension in this crisis is that we have finally admitted that the task, like dealing with the ozone layer or global warming, needs governments to co-operate.
Complain about this comment
....and here is the next disaster Capitalism is lining up for us - ahhh isn't it sweet x x x x
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/article6915447.ece
I must agree with sharpcj @7 - it is refreshing to see an article actually questioning what we have taken as gospel all these years.
Free markets are fictional places in the minds of Economists - we have never had one and we will never achieve one (or not at least until we have developed instant and total universial conciousness between humans - i.e. mind reading)
That's the only way we can achieve perfect knowledge - which is a fundamental principle of a free market.
Until then we're all just 'marks' in a scam being played on us by fraudsters - who are protected from reprisal by laws they create and enforce.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
From taxpayers viewpoint:
Expensive Market capitalism
or
Postconsumerism
Complain about this comment
Cryptoelitoeconomics or Crapitalism for short.
Complain about this comment
Capitalism = ownership of means of production by a class
Communism = collective ownership of the means of production by the people
Hence,
Soviet Union, China & other 'communist' states = state capitalism, i.e. the ownership of the means of production by a class (the Communist Party)
The market version of capitalism veers between the liberalist 'laissez-faire' version and the social 'democratic' interventionist version.
Lately we are seeing a move to the latter; whatever is in the interest of the capitalist class.
It's all capitalism.
Complain about this comment
It's a common fallacy to think that having named something you understand it. But the suggestion that everything is now different, and so we need a different name, shows that we don't understand at all.
We have been, and still are, living in an economy based not on wealth (acculuated historical earnings) but on credit (speculative future earnings): and while we like to talk about "credit" we actually mean "debt".
This was not, and is not, capitalism: if only because there is very little capital involved. But it doesn't matter what it is called.
Now it has emerged that much of this debt is "toxic" (threatening the lenders); so Governments are purchasing "toxic debts", and colluding in the "recapitalisation" of Banks, at our expense.
Whether the debt economy can be put back in place is still uncertain. But it is clear that Governments (ie the taxpayers) will be paying for the clean up for a long long time.
As for public sector growth: it can only continue for a short period when, as now, tax revenues are falling and borrowing is through the roof. Another fundamental is that wealth is not created in the public sector and, sooner or later, we will have to earn the money to pay our way.
Complain about this comment
its always been and still is an oligarchy. the chicago school just called it liberal democracy capitalism.
there has never been any capitalism. which is why millionaires get farming subsidies and cleaners can pay more tax than executives.
the big scam today is carbon trading which is basically a tax on air or existence. carbon trading is set to become the biggest market in the world where every person through proxies will be paying in to it. it gives the illusion something is happening when all that is happening is a wealth transfer from poor to rich. look at the the companies making up the carbon exchanges who get a cut of every trade. Look at those promoting carbon trading- ceos of energy companies who get free carbon credits they can then sell to make money out of nothing.
the monetisation of carbon is like the monetisation of sin for which people had to buy papal indulgences to continue sinning. we saw how rich that made them?
not so long ago the uk was 'run' by 100 families [some say 1000]. nothing has changed except perhaps the names.
so we should start calling it what it always has been -an oligarchic regime.
Complain about this comment
"Financial corporatism"
Complain about this comment
Sorry, "Finance Corporatism".
Complain about this comment
We can call it an inversion as the nature of political power in society has changed causing a fundamental switch in economic priorities.
Previously the state was the instrument of the dominant class who by its very nature had to be the element in society with the greatest control of available resources; whether it be landed estates, coal-mines or weapons factories. In other words the people who owned the country, ran the country.
Now at some point along the way this structure has changed. Many years ago I thought it had changed to be the social class who generated the wealth on which the country depended who called the political tune. In other words the people who added the value into the economy ran the country.
Yet it has become progressively evident that this is also no longer the case.
The controlling element within society today are the people who spend other people's money. That statement alone tells us all we need to know about how we got into this mess.
The financial services industry has laid waste to the savings of the country by risking the money of other people. The higher the risk taken the better the pay: madness! At the same time government created a vast, often bonussed, bureaucracy on the back of that most other of all people; namely, the taxpayer.
The distortion is vast and even controls public attitudes where the expectation of a benefit, an expense, a bonus or a free service is paramount.
The horrible truth which the West has to learn is that you have to earn your own living. Global economic development has meant that there is no longer a vast army of coolies to do the bidding of the colonial master. The poor of the world also want their slice of the pie and expect it to be cut generously.
At the expense of sounding like a Status Quo record with the same old boring tune, as a nation we have lost the plot. We might know the price of everything but we have no idea as to what true value is. If we want something we just demand it and expect the state to provide. We are as spoiled children screaming in the supermarket unaware that everything has to be paid for and someone has to earn the money in the first place to make that payment.
It is said that in 1649 after the English Civil War the world was turned upside down. It has been turned upside down these last twenty years or so. To get things back in order we just need to turn it back the other way.
It is not a case of markets versus state intervention or some other dogma, it is about being pragmatic. There need be just two standards: what value does it add and does it work. We should try it some time.
Complain about this comment
No need for a new name - it is corporatism, a form of fascism.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
15. At 3:59pm on 13 Nov 2009, Nataku wrote:
You have made the classic mistake - on the one hand it's not a free market we have, but it's the regulators fault for not controlling it properly.
In a free market there are no regulators.
Once again the free market is a pipe dream, because the sheer size and magnitude of companies failing is enough to bring instability and social upheaveal to large parts of the country - should they be allowed to fail.
....but the whole reason there is a monopolies commission is because is any free market the bigger players have the advantage of purchasing power over the others - the tendancy is for success to be big and getting bigger.
So you can't have a free market with regulation, but you wouldn't be wise to allow companies to grow to a point where their collapse would create chaos for citizens - remember there is nothing that panics people more than their usual shops and services disappearing - so how do you control it?
...the answer is you can't.
This is a contradiction - and is exactly how we get to the situation we're in.
Maybe it would be a good idea to allow true free market failure to occur - simply to prove how much mess it would create - it would be free market anarchy - which in turn would produce social anarchy. Then at least we could discount this idea as a pointless one to pursue and stop wasting so much time trying in vain to make it work.
Complain about this comment
18. At 4:06pm on 13 Nov 2009, writingsonthewall wrote:
"That's the only way we can achieve perfect knowledge - which is a fundamental principle of a free market."
You are getting "free market" mixed up with "perfect market" - sort it out man.
Complain about this comment
name for current economy = fictocapitalism
name for the next economy = cryptoplutocracy
Complain about this comment
30. At 4:26pm on 13 Nov 2009, grahambond
How did you get away with that - I am impressed.
Sleeping with the moderator are we??
Complain about this comment
It is indeed a crazy world where losers take all.
Some people, call them property developers if you like, borrowed shed loads of money to finance management buy outs of the companies they worked for.
Those companies promptly went bust. Owing the banks those shed loads.
So these now bank owned companies still employ the very managers that drove them off the cliff. And of course those banks also failed. We the taxpayers rescued them.
So the failed losers are doing very well thankyou.
So what can we call this arrangement?
Nonsense?
But necessary of course to keep the money flowing. The government is hardly likely to put a stop to it since it is the only show in town. Taxpayer backed banks giving shed loads of money to failed businessmen. Obviously those failed businessmen are actually smart. Looking out for themselves. Using the institutions available to them to the fullest extent.
I know. Let's call it "Realism".
It's still nonsense though..
Complain about this comment
What a brill post Steph.
How about Orwell-nomics
Or Gnome-omics
Mayan-omics
China-Crisis-onomics
Virtualonomics
Numpty-o-nomics
rofl-onomics
Best SF all year.
Complain about this comment
I think that the current economy reflects a mixed economy as we assume it to be mixed with Behavioural Economics applied to it, i.e. Human deficiencies, not acocunted for in Normal Economics.
Complain about this comment
32. At 4:33pm on 13 Nov 2009, truths33k3r
I point to this definition of a free market:
"By definition, buyers and sellers do not coerce each other, in the sense that they obtain each other's property rights without the use of physical force, threat of physical force, or fraud, nor are they coerced by a third party (such as by government via transfer payments) [1] and they engage in trade simply because they both consent and believe that what they are getting is worth more than or as much as what they give up."
...and how do the parties in the trade believe that what they are getting is the same as what they are giving up - without knowing exactly the opportunity cost of that trade against all other possibilities
...for that - you need perfect knowledge.
It seems that you are proving that a free market is not possible with your seperation with a perfect market. It's either free and perfect - or it will require intervention.
Complain about this comment
Suckitandseeism, Because I am sure nobody really Knows what's going on.....
Complain about this comment
When will all you (b)ankers who think it's best to keep on blaming a lack of governance and the tardy regulators for this messy struggle get some values ? Want to perpetuate this and live in a police state where anything goes unless you get caught ? When on earth would you ever first blame bad policing for a crime and not the robber for stealing your family silver ? Is this too big a leap for you lot ? I assume you will of course maintain your moral low ground and absolve the burgler next time your house gets screwed !
Complain about this comment
SPECULATISM
Complain about this comment
New name for the same old system? How about Demockeracy?
Complain about this comment
Taxpayers Alliance funded Capitalism
Complain about this comment
38. At 4:55pm on 13 Nov 2009, writingsonthewall wrote:
"they engage in trade simply because they both consent and believe that what they are getting is worth more than or as much as what they give up."
This does not refute my point that you can have a free market that is not perfect. Someone can believe that they are getting more or the same as they giving up, but this may not actually be the case.
Complain about this comment
We are enduring a tired old, lumbering giant of a fudge... it's what it was always destined to be and its name is Socio-Capitalism.
A more important consideration than playing around with semantics, is what and where from here? ... Significant impending global issues from overpopulation through to catastrophic climate change are posing increasingly difficult questions of our buckled and failing economic and political systems... the future is scary, the future is fudge!
Complain about this comment
Bankocracy sounds too narrow - after all there's a lot more to capitalism than just banks, plus they're not actually running the country. But Paul Woolley's argument is that the financial intermediaries, who should be utilities, are able to capture *most* of the wealth created. So it's not a system that really benefits the owners of capital, such as today the pension funds. So what is it that the intermediaries have got instead of capital? Like everything else in this discussion, it's not really clear. So maybe "Darkism" on the basis that: the intermediaries like to keep their world obscure; they have succeeded and ordinary people have very little understanding of the events shaping the economy (we're in the dark); economic theory doesn't properly explain what's going on (we're in a kind of intellectual Dark Ages there); huge bail outs get sewn up behind closed doors with no effective scrutiny.
Complain about this comment
No16 Hawkeye,
Would that be the same Adam Smith that said ' it only takes a few minutes for four of five businessmen to get together before they begin to conspire against the general public' or words to that effect.
Complain about this comment
We know that doctrinaire socialism does not work, but now we find that unfettered freemarket capitalism does not work either. The state has a role and so does private enterprise. At the moment a combination is set up on an emergency footing, with excessive support of the financial sector in the U.K and also the U.S.
The nature of the economy we have allowed to develop here is almost medieval in its shape. Money is sucked out of the poorest levels of the least well off taxpayers, for whom tax is a higher proprtion of their earnings, then discharged into the richest area, the financial sector. This now takes for granted public finance as capital of last resort.From here money flows out of the economy to the far east.
As yet none of the political parties have dared look seriously at the enormous rebalancing which will have to occur. It is not important whether enterprise is private or state or a combination. What is important is that all of it, including the state, has to be wealth creating and profitable. The exception are public services, which must be effeicent and effective, thus contributing indirectly to economic efficiency.
This will require the closing down of government by review and inquiry and the demolition of the quango state. Something of the order of two million workers will have to move from jobs where they drain resources to jobs where they contribute to the rebuilding of national wealth. This is going to be a very painful process. To get the people not only to back it but do it will require a much fairer distribution of resources than we have at present. The gap between rich and poor has to be narrowed.
Complain about this comment
How about Mythocracy.
This is a system in which those in power attempt to convince the populus that they know best; that governments and banks inventing money from nothing is fine; that boom and bust is ended; that you can borrow your way out of debt; and there is no price to pay for personal or governmental profligacy.
Complain about this comment
Groundhogdaylatism.
Then, we can keep reliving to past 30 Years over and over again.
Therefore, Back to the Future.
Complain about this comment
Debtism?
Complain about this comment
economic national socialism...minus the bullets and gas chambers
I suppose you could call that progress.
Complain about this comment
Have we had free-market Capitalism since the time of Woodrow Wilson? As far as I was aware this died out completely by about 1936.
Since then we've had Controlled-Market Capitalism, and we've benefitted or suffered in turn under it as successive Governments strove to vary the degree and nature of the control to fit the circumstances of the time.
I think that the one lesson to be learned as a result of this "slump" is that we're still learning, and cannot afford to be complacent about our economic models and policies.
Complain about this comment
Deludonomics within deludonomics
For me the only real tragedy if all that has been created truly
comes crashing down is the scientific research work which
is how I value wo mans achievements and in my opinion
how we should find value - for what is paper money, gold
and all those abstract nonsense ways wo man has created to
fool himherself into believing there was value ? - deludovalue
I was going to include art but sadly that has been so thoroughly
corrupted by the money delusion it has to be put on one side
as well. No financial regulation there - wanna bet that's where
capitalism heads. Curators of 'important' art institutions are
like central banks they can magic money out of nothing. Take an
'artist' (anyone will do really, Emin is proof) and make money pour
out of them by the best use of affinity fraud known to wo man.
Lene Vestergaard Hau stopped light and converted it into matter
then back into light in open space - now that's value in my book -
science value.
We are on the verge of massive breakthroughs with disease and
extending human life wouldn't it be ironic if in the next 100 years it
all comes crashing down because humanity cant come to terms
with what value is.
The Spartans used iron bars as currency instead of gold and silver
to discourage the accumulation of wealth and deal with the money
love problem. A vicious 200 year rule brought to an end by a now little
know hero - General Epaminondas at The Battle of Leuctra.
Still the Spartans understood the problems with money - but it still
cost them dear at Thermopylae.
Complain about this comment
We know what the system is called already – it’s called state capitalism!
US of A and the UK have joined the BRIC nations as they are mostly state capitalist nations, the EU will follow soon.
The next step is logically to directly intervene in the economy and plan the recovery.
This will have to be done by directing investments into the various sectors of the economy.
We have nationalised the banks and confiscated their weapons of mass destruction, now it time to turn those weapons into weapons of mass wealth creation.
I know there are plenty of failed planned economies (Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Labour Government post 1945 etc.), but the two most successful were the UK and America during the Second World War.
It will require a monumental effort to get the country out of this mess and that can only be done by the mobilization of the economy.
Complain about this comment
Free bank economy (as opposed to free market economy)?
Although I like the Kelptocracy suggestion.
The truth is though that those who have pointed to corporatism are right. I've been banging on about it for years to anyone who would listen but both of them had stopped listening until Le Crunch arrived.
It started years ago when I heard of a US firm breathalysing people in the morning and sacking them if there was any trace of alcohol. (if they could do their job competently, why was good enough not good enough?).
Then I noticed that teh Working Time Directive meant that people who worked through lunch has 1/2 hour docked - supposedly. But the directive actually says that the worker may have a break of twenty minutes after any work period of six hours. The key words being TWENTY and MAY - i.e. it is at the worker's discretion. Presumably designed to protect workers from slave-drivers, but then turned to be used against them by slippery old Mr Corporate-Beast.
The you notice that the concept of teh "profesional day" has been slipped into place so that although a contract says 7-8 hours per day many are expected to work 11-12 hours or be seen as slackers. I guess that means 2 people are doing the job that 3 people used to do... a factor in unemployment perhaps.
I work to live, not the other way round.
Add to this the way pension funds are being closed, staff are being "TUPE'd" over to other companies and the law does not require their pension rights to be maintained. The debate rages on about whether pension needs should be a governemnt or a private uissue - but the bottom line is always that whenever anyone's pension arrangements fail the burden will fall upon the state and therefore all pensions are underwritten by the state, like it or not. Start from there and the rest falls into place quite naturally, but I digress, back to corporate misbehaviour...
Political parties are funded by corporations and affinity groups of corporations who expect their interests to be looked after. This is a major factor in allowing corproatism to overtake us.
You can also see it in the way taxes on corporations are passed on to the customer, never the shareholder. Example: the great G3 mobile phone licence sell-off. £16bn raised for the Treasury, , so you might expect tax savings for the citizen. Nope. Instead the monthly cost of a phone contract leapt from £10 to around £30-35 thereby effectively passing it on to the customer as a tax on mobile phone USERS that we are still paying today.
The banks. To recover, they simply lend at 5% in a 0.5% base rate world. Or at 19% on credit cards. Again, it's the customer being hit and not the shareholder. And they all do it, irrespective of the state of tyheir balance sheets - surely this must be cartel operation?
I believe that the way forward is not to nationalise, nor to do the opposite in total (as we do now). But to have in every walk of life, a government-run company that competes with the private concerns and has the remuneration of the employees based on their performance in that market.
So there would be a government bank, and critically, it COULD fail. It may need to be re-created, but the shareholders and investors could lose the lot and so there is no unfairness in competition terms. This would be clearly understood by all - no moaning at the government for not intervening when it does fail. They must, in fact, be legally prevented from doing so.
In that vein there would also be, for example, a government-funded pharmaceutical research company - this to discourage excessive research into "solutions" that require lifelong treatment rather than an out-and-out cure. We are seeing too much of that today from companies that want their customers to pay all their life and not just once.
There woudl also be a government shiping company - if it's cheaper to send goods on the train then let's find out if we can live without the road transport lobby clogging up our roads with lorries, protected by their paid-for political cronies - by actually trying the alternatives.
A form of social contract may also be required, with real penalties for directors or other responsible persons. The Treating Customers Fairly approach to regulation works well in the insurance side of financial services - shame it wasn't in place in the rest of it.
We may even need to revisit what exactly a company is and what it is allowed to do. It is not set in stone that it has to be as it is, limitations on size and on the scope and range of buisiness activities may be required and even on the way shareholding works. Perhaps all customers have to become shareholders? There is a lot that could be done here, but largely we have lived with the same structures for centuries now and there is no immutable law of nature that says it must be so, and yet we see very little discussion of these matters.
The individual must also be encouraged by law to focus on their responsibilities as much as on their rights. It makes me see red to watch the young people on tv documentaries who are suddenly trying to learn to write and count AFTER they have left school. They spend their time at school doing nothing because it’s “un-cool” to learn anything. They wait until the real world hits them and then ask us to foot the bill to give them yet another chance to learn the absolute basics. And we wonder why government think we need immigration. Why not show them the real world earlier? *cough* National service? *cough*
But the bottom line is that we cannot afford to have shirkers in any niche of society.
Blimey. I think I've written enough to start my own blog. I'll shut up now.
Complain about this comment
A few years ago the BBC had a brilliant documentary called the Trap, which - even before the whole bubble collapsed - explained why it would eventually. Unfortunately they have never seen any reason to repeat it or bring it out as a DVD. Perhaps they should now.
The Trap seems a perfect name for the kind of economy that we are locked in now....
Complain about this comment
This is getting rather tiresome Stephanie.
Capitalism has many meanings but most identify with the term 'free market economy'rightly or wrongly.
I'm having difficulty finding an example in the world of a truly 'free market economy' because there isn't one.
Most economies are of the mixed market variety' (private/public sectors) which have certain laws and regulation to protect various 'property rights' or to negate potential adverse behaviour against the majority.
Distortions in market economies come from various taxation policies, artificial central bank interventions, the degree of public sector mix and involvement, public subsidies and distortions emanating from these (a simple current example would be the BBC, a monopoly in the media which gets the benefit of taxation but also operates commercially affecting the industry around it).
At the moment we have distortions all over the place from EU farming subsidies through to various tax benefits and schemes (scams!) like the old bangers for cash. There are literally hundreds of thousands.
The financial crisis was probably a combination, as I have stated previously of poor regulation, taxation policy and government reliability on tax income as well as previous central bank intervention (see Greenspan's bubble for example) rather than any philosphical leaning.
It's been very noticeable that supposed experts have been queueing up to blame the free market economy line to abscond from personal poor judgement or lack of judgement. The market is created by us collectively stupid.
But lots of media commentators have lapped it up of course showing their own ignorance of the subject/situation.
If we want to 'solve' our current predicament we need to look at the things I've mentioned above and either stop, dismantle, simplify or realign (particularly taxation and intervention) otherwise we are just creating tomorrow's (worse) problem.......
Coming up with another unwanted naming exercise is, maybe, a great parlour game but ultimately just '******* in the wind' and another case of misdirection from the real issues.
Complain about this comment
Bancofascism - obviously. Not that you'll get that past your editor on the 6 o'clock news.
Complain about this comment
Stephanie
You mention self-regulation in your post. Self-regulation is always a conspiracy against the laity. All humans are subject to the temptations of corruption, complacency and self-aggrandisment. Those who believe they are above these human frailties are exactly those who are most likely to practice them. Lawyers, politicians, financiers - all convince themselves they have the moral superiority to self-regulate and by doing so define themselves as being untrustworthy. We are right to be suspicious of any such groups.
Complain about this comment
How about:
Eurotoxopoly
Fringetoxopoly
Gordobloatopoly
Goondogtrillopoly
Queeztoxopoly
Celticconspiricistolopoly
Gaddafilafilopoly
Scottisubsimilkolopoly
Bureautoxacracy
Brownocracy
Goonbloatoxacracy
Boombustopoly
Spintoxopoly
Dangermousocracy
Nondomocracy
Vultubankcrimopoly
and others that will not pass moderation!
Take your pick!
Complain about this comment
Gordonomics. Cheers Gordon, thanks for your legacy.
Complain about this comment
'Kleptocracy' (like many others) given the ensuing transfers of capital from the majority to a tiny minority led by mostly be-knighted individuals. Sir Fred Goodwin, Sir Tom McKillop, Lord Stevenson etc.
Was in Berlin on Monday night and the irony wasn't lost on me either. Big difference though was that Honecker and co. finished up in prison(OK so they ordered border guards to shoot escapees so there is a slight difference!). Here the likes of Aliiance Boots go out and hire Andy Hornby to be their CEO within 3 months of the Treasury inquiry.
What is going on?!
How about Sir Fred hosting a TV game show Family(Mis)Fortunes?
Nonetheless, a bit of
Complain about this comment
We seem to be back to Orwell here.
There is no need to run competitions for a new name for our economy, the old one remains accurate - it is called Fascism. That means that managers, supporters and administrators of this system are Fascists.
It is quite easy really if you understand a little history and a little of the English language. "Fascism is a merger between corporate and state power" - Mussolini. Let us try to recognise the past, it may have something to teach.
Back to Orwell and back to Fascism. The BBC considers it appropriate to comment: "And yet, public borrowing in the leading "free market" economies - Britain and the US - has never been as high as it is today, outside times of war."
Hello!!! Does anyone know the way to Afghanistan? Just because you choose not to report US/UK actions in Iran and Pakistan does not mean that those actions are not taking place.
Aint it funny how political correctness does not prohibit the casual dismissal of the pointless loss of life by poor people.
So economists assumed that people were rational and well informed enough to produce market led outcomes. If this is true then these economists must be more stupid than the human mind can imagine. Do you really think there was a rational demand to invade Iraq or a rational demand for young people to consume vast amounts of alco-pops, or for people to gorge themselves on burgers until they were too fat to live a normal life. If that demand existed then why bother lying, manipulating data, and devoting vast tracts of advertising space to promote rubbish products that no-one would ever naturally choose to consume.
Complain about this comment
What is interesting about all the comments so far is their negativity. All the old justifications for our way of life have proved false. The truth is that we have a fundamental model - once clearly stated by Adam Smith / Margaret Thatcher - a free market, which is no longer "free" and is being propped up by continual government tinkering.
Thomas Kuhn said that you could tell when an old paradigm was about to be discarded when it became "messy". Our understanding of the economy looks like Ptolemy's version of the universe which in a sense "worked" but was "messy". It needs to be replaced by a radically different model.
Name for the present "system"? "Outdated capitalism"?
Complain about this comment
New name for a new economy?
Legally sanctioned fraud and corruption.
It is not a new economy at all it is what always happens when the monopoly power of small groups (cartels) becomes greater than is manageable by a society. (see K Marx)
Complain about this comment
Given the way the Labour government keep harping on about it despite their own 12 years to fix stuff, why don't we call it the "Blameitallontheconservativesonomics"?
Complain about this comment
"What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun." (Ecclesiastes 1:9)
"No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money." (Matthew 6:24)
The "ism" doesn't matter. They're just new names for an old, old problem...
Complain about this comment
Back in the 1980s we were taught that the United Kingdom was a Mixed Economy, given that we had socialised welfare and health and some nationalised industry.
I can't see that this has not continued to be the case.
We haven't been a capitalist society or economy, like the USA or the Republic of Ireland, for many decades.
Complain about this comment
Socio-Capitalism
Complain about this comment
Stephanie
IMHO you keep asking the wrong questions. For instance in this case instead of asking for a "New name for a new economy?" ... a better question would arguably be to ask for a "New Name for a New Economics?"
... as traditional 'economics' is too narrow in scope and is now effectively dead. Dr W Edwards Deming wrote his landmark book over 20 years ago (called 'The New Economics') - which resulted in the creation of Leanomics, and the 'battle' of the future will be a "battle of values' ... summarised as
Leanomics vs Poweromics & Ignoromics
where:
Leanomics = People taking responsibility for adding value and continuously improving the situation for others (e.g. customers, communities, overall environment), based upon fundamental values such as trust, honor, responsibility and respect.
Poweromics = People using position and power for their own personal gain, based on poor moral values, self interest and greed.
Ignoromics = People are either effectively ignorant of the situation (e.g. the overall environment) or not prepared to take responsibility to make sure it changes for the better.
None of this is rocket science, but what's clear is that things will be getting much worse before they start to get better ... as Ignoromics will need to reduce a lot more before Poweromics is properly challenged ... http://poweromics.blogspot.com/2009/06/for-evil-to-flourish.html ... but happen it will, and we are not very far away from this now ...
David Clift, A Future 500 Leader
Complain about this comment
(Government) Directed Capitalism
Complain about this comment
The future of capitalism surely lies with the Waitrose/John Lewis/ worker shared ownership model. The more peole who are involved in the decisions the less extreme the compny's actions. The market therefore becomes MORE efficient as the wisdom of crowds/employees kicks in.
Complain about this comment
I suggest we call it the "New Corporate State".
Perhaps Tony Blair was right when he talked of his "Third way" because the term was originally coined by Il Duce - Mussolini to describe his corporate state where private business was allowed to run itself until it failed and then the State stepped in and took over.
Of course in a true corporate state there is an attempt to reconcile workers and management to work together so the Post Office strike seems to tell against that.
However the death of Gobalisation as banks/companies are chopped up smaller so that governments can control them within state borders would seem to indicate that the Corporate State is alive and well. Likewise the fragmented approach to the stimulus package would seem to sound the death knell of Globalisation as individual states find their own way through the problem.
Complain about this comment
Well, let's see:
It's the rich and privileged elites stealing from the poor, following the "vile maxim" as pointed by good old Adam Smith of "everything for us, nothing for anybody else".
So why do we need a new name for it?
It's just business as usual.
Complain about this comment
I wonder why it was necessary for there to be a crisis in the banking system for Stephanie to realise that we don't really have a free market system!
Just take a look at your tax bill. Well before the credit crunch (you remember, back when Gordon Brown had abolished "Tory Boom and Bust"), the government was spending nearly half of what we all earned, nearly half of what all businesses make.
So in 2005, in a way, the government already owned half of every business in the UK, and in a way it owned half of every person. It's only nearly-half communism, and nearly-half slavery, but half is pretty bad. It's even worse when you consider that it has gradually got like that over decades, and it will probably continue to get worse as the decades pass. "Sleepwalking" would be a good way to describe it.
And yet in the other half of the economy, the private sector, there is half a free market, and it does indeed work very well, mostly left to itself. It struggles under the weight of a mountain of regulation, originally created with the good intention of stopping unscrupulous businesses from ripping people off. However, unscrupulous businesses tend to break the law anyway, so regulations don't really work on them. So the regulations just create a massive additional cost burden on the scrupulous.
Our private sector must be reasonably healthy because we continue to attract economic migrants. The Berlin Wall was built to stop people trying to leave communism - which no one in their right mind would volunteer to live under. So we have every reason to celebrate the fall of the wall, and it is crackers to suggest that we should pretend that we have no advantages over the Eastern block. The fall of the communist states was a miracle!
The reason for the credit crunch, as many people have said, is that the bankers did NOT take a risk, as they knew they were too big to fail (and had been told as much by the government). The banking sector is so intimately related with the money system itself, it has to be regulated. This is surely not a shock to anyone?
The above blog post is written rather misleadingly. The key phrase is "Especially in matters of finance". Before that, Stephanie talks about markets in general, and the widespread belief (well supported by experience) that they produce wealth if left to themselves. After that phrase, she switches to talking about financial markets, i.e. the extending of credit to other businesses. That is, and always has been, and probably always must be, a regulated special sector of the economy. Ultimately government controls the base rate, which controls everything else. And all other business activities depend on the credit supply.
So it is frankly odd to say that because the government screwed up the regulation of credit, we can cast doubt on the effectiveness of markets and personal economic freedom in all other areas of our lives. That is the implication of saying that it is "ironic to be marking the fall of communism, when less than a year ago capitalism itself had seemed to be on its knees." The only part that failed was the part that the government absolutely has to regulate. Instead, Gordon Brown said he'd ended Tory Boom and Bust, and kept interest rates low (and in 2005 Labour campaigned on the basis of how wonderfully low interests were - they made a whole poster about that, as if it was an achievement rather than an idiotic decision). That failure of government is what has endangered all other economic activities, so to praise the government for being the source of growth right now, is misplaced praise, to say the least.
In fact, another misleading claim here is that governments are responsible for economic growth at the moment. Governments aim to create a fixed structure, something static. This means they cannot cause economic growth. At best, they can stop economic collapse. They can cause inflation though, which can look like growth for a while. Economic growth has to be created by people looking for efficiencies, inventing smarter ways of doing things - Government incentivises the opposite! It rewards the wasteful. It punishes the efficient.
Also, although Stephanie claims that "economists agree" that the growth is being driven by stimulus packages, in fact there is much dissent over this. Search for 'Cafe Hayek' for some Austrian perspectives.
Complain about this comment
How about Catastrophonomics - the study of economies that gradually balloon out of all control and the type of system it creates is a Catastrophism.
Complain about this comment
# 15. Nataku
I dont think any truly free market (ie banks not protected by government etc) would be self regulatory since some individuals within the system would see opportunities to make massive personal fortunes and parachute out to live in splendour while the mess they leave behind reduces millions to poverty.
This is the fundamental problem which regulation is required to prevent (or at least mitigate).
It is also worth noting that the short time perspective of people who would take the 'earn like crazy then parachute out' would be similar to elected politicians (4 or 5 years) who have next election perspective (e.g. Gordon Brown's huge layering of debt so the next Government have to sort it out, take all the hard decisions etc etc and then Labour get re-elected at some point because the electorate forgot who started it all!
Complain about this comment
The Age of Discredit. False economics, false reasons for going to war, false Parliamentary expenses. Never have so many important people have had so much to live down.
Complain about this comment
Some great therapudic reading.
Whereismydoleism comes to mind.
currently battling the state in this regard :(
Complain about this comment
#76 danielearwicker
Glad to see somebody else who can see through the misdirection and misunderstandings - see mine at #58
Complain about this comment
How about "Symbiotic Capitalism"
That is, rather than the owners of capital exploiting labour without caring about the effect it has, a recognition that in the short term they are mutually dependent on labour and government to ensure their survival. Of course it will not last.
Complain about this comment
There are two ways to increase efficiency - improved management or improved technology.
Given that both politicians and the public free-market are no good at management (both are too prone to marketing and short-term reward), our only hope are the scientists and engineers.
Complain about this comment
Do we need a new name for the kind of economy we live in today?
Tripartite myopic Brownian motion economics or Government overspending!
- work it out.
Complain about this comment
How can you say Stephanie that in country where most of the essential public services like railway, water, gas, electricty, communication etc. are owned, occupied and operated by capitalist enterprenures and they decide when they want to increase price of their commodities and services and as you mentioned the public sector (I would say the 'watchdog')would simply make statements and watch this things what is happening around us. Am I right....
Complain about this comment
#76 wrote
'The Berlin Wall was built to stop people trying to leave communism - which no one in their right mind would volunteer to live under.'
--------------------------
I have met more than a few people in Hungary and several other former soviet block countries who said they preferred life under the old communist regime.
Complain about this comment
#76 ...oh and btw...Hungary considers itself to be a central european country.
Complain about this comment
We were in the Goldilocks economy - we now have the 3 Bears; bare-ly any money, bare-ly any new jobs and bare-ly any short-term prospect of getting back to growth soon.
I'd like to see some recognition from the financial masters of the Universe that they are sorry, and, more importantly, accept that things need to change to stop it all happening again.
Complain about this comment
Finmangled
http://www.artbreak.com/work/show/211110-finmangled-chloegreen
Complain about this comment
Economics ..... the art of the SWAG (scientific wild assed guess)
Up here in Scotland I call the current situation "Westmiddenism".. It's the practice of taking something very valuable such as North Sea oil revenues and pouring them down the drain and gaining no value from them whatsoever. It's almost as if we never found oil/gas off our coasts.
But I think that what probably sums up the real problem with the whole economy can be summarised by a throw away comment by the former energy minister Malcolm Wicks in his recent report on Energy Security. He was talking about how badly the UK compared with our main competitors when it comes to R&D in new energy technologies and he put it down in part to the fact that the UK didn't really have an energy industrial base to build on.
Now those of us who have been involved in the industry for most of our working lives are very aware of that. We know that countries such as Norway, Germany, France, Denmark, the USA and others own most of our industry and are certainly responsible for the manufacturing of all the strategically important bits of hardware.
Worse - now that we're moving towards new clean energy technologies we are still not investing anything like enough either in R&D or in the creation of new technology companies as compared to our competitors. Most of those nice shiny wind turbines being installed off the E Coast are beimg built by Siemens or Vestas or GE.....
There's no avoiding the fact that this is due not just to the attitude of the Treasury but also the financial services sector. The Treasury would much prefer everyone else developed all the kit so we could just buy what we want when we want it. The financial services sector thinks in pretty much the same way. Sadly, the City is simply not up to the job. Not only are that mob socially useless they are strategically inept.
Now all this bodes very badly for the promises (which I simply don't believe) by both the Commissariat and the Tories that they will rebalance the economy by building up the manufacturing sector...
To cure all this I think we need some radicalism starting with the downgrading of the Treasury to a customer service type organisation and the demotion of the Chancellor to nothing more than an advisor and chief beancounter.
Complain about this comment
#84
"Brownian Motion" is good - but for the age of misrule and disorder we are currently labouring under I think Brownian Commotion is a more apt description of what capitalism has become.
It can also be argued quite fairly that the global economy has been Greenspannered - or perhaps Greenspanked - by a bunch of complete Benankers.
But capitalism, predicated on the mythology that ever increasing wealth could ever exist on a finite planet, was always due to run out of road some day. The fact that we have pulled the vehicle from the ditch and continued further along that road - fuelled with debt to encourage the belief that this myth can still sustain our wanton appetites - only ensures that the final crash will be even more painful when it comes.
Complain about this comment
Stuff-the-pooracracy?
Why so coy, Steph? We already have a word for what we have. The word is "plutocracy". The richest and wealthiest among us get to to decide how we are informed (eg Rupert Murdoch), how we are governed (Murdoch too), what the laws will be etc. When they screw up the economy big time they have the ear of government so closely that they can ensure that their bonuses will be paid and that the poorest waitress who serves them at table will pay for it.
And this is what the "free-market purists" don't understand. The biggest players in the 'free market' - folk like Murdoch - don't, and never have, subscribe to the notion of a genuinely free market. They wield their political power, they call in their debts, they use their financial muscle to jig the market. They always have. When times are good they seek "deregulation". When they are bad they seek "intervention"
Frankly, anyone who believes in a genuinely free market needs his/her bumps read
Complain about this comment
What about your employer steph (the BBC)?, who imposes a non means tested poll tax which through non payment send lots of women to jail every year?
What sort if capitalism is that?
Good for the goose, good for the gander
Complain about this comment
@danielearwicker #76:
Where to start with your litany of inaccuracies?
"the government was spending nearly half of what we all earned, nearly half of what all businesses make" Wrong -the Govt spends what it takes in tax. This is NOT 'half of what all businesses make' - Business Tax is WAY below 50%. And the richest individuals hire accountants to ensure that they pay as little tax as possible. Meanwhile, the poorest get stuffed by increased purchase taxes - like Mr. Osborne's proposal to ramp VAT up to 20%.
"And yet in the other half of the economy, the private sector, there is half a free market, and it does indeed work very well, mostly left to itself."
Utter rot. Even when one takes account of your use of the weasel word 'mostly'. Why do so many small businesses go bust? 'Big Govt regulation'? Or profiteering by banks? How about targeted attacks by pseudo-monopolistic larger firms with the resources to kill them off with lowered local prices until the small-fry die?
"unscrupulous businesses tend to break the law anyway, so regulations don't really work on them. So the regulations just create a massive additional cost burden on the scrupulous."
How right you are! Using this logic, let's also abolish the laws against property theft, as they 'don't really work' on the unscrupulous - such as burglars - and just create a 'nightmare of tax-hungry bureaucracy' to be funded by the scrupulous. Let's repeal the laws against kidnapping too, because the 'unscrupulous' will always ignore them!
"Our private sector must be reasonably healthy because we continue to attract economic migrants."
Another rotten fallacy. This country sucks in people from dirt-poor countries, tempted by the 'huge' wages they can get paid here. Firms pay them wages that are a pittance by UK standards. This enables the firms to cut the pay of local employees, or just fire them. The migrants may well be living to live in very unpleasant conditions for a few years whilst sending cash home - analogous to students living in overcrowded, awful houses for the few years while they study - before going back home.
Cui bono? The already-rich bosses at the firms, who get an immediate increase in Profits. The rest of us get increased unemployment, increased rents & house prices (as there is an increased demand for housing for short-term migrant workers), and an increase in acquisitive crime, drug abuse, and the violence and social breakdown that accompany them. NONE of which affects the wealthy in their gated enclaves.
"The reason for the credit crunch, as many people have said, is that the bankers did NOT take a risk, as they knew they were too big to fail"
This part's accurate - but the banking system can NEVER be allowed to fail, as anyone who has even the barest knowledge of 20th century history knows. If banks start to fail, EVERYONE tries to 'save' their money by taking it out of the banks and, hey presto, you have NO liquidity in the economy i.e. NO 'economy'. Lots of people thrown out of work, then out of their homes when they cannot pay their rents/mortgages.
People DON'T just sit and starve you know, they have these things called 'riots', and 'revolutions'.
The current crisis has been caused by the 'Masters of the Universe' in high finance having being allowed to do whatever they pleased.
Mis-selling mortgages to people who would never be able to pay them back - and thereby 'earning' themselves billions in Commission.
Packaging-up those bad debts with others, in exotic new forms of 'commercial paper' that were expressly designed to get around the few Regulations that were still left - and selling these 'interest-bearing 'AAA-rated' 'assets' for more Commission.
The *really* criminal bit was, of course, buying-up other banks' Bad Debts and thereby 'earning' yet more Commission.
Then somebody points out that it's all toxic debt that cannot ever be repaid, and NOBODY can tell you where the bad money is?
That will be £1 Trillion for the taxpayers please - and we sure as heck aren't going to lend your money back to you, let alone give up our billions of £ of annual 'bonuses' for our 'exceptional' performance!
"In fact, another misleading claim here is that governments are responsible for economic growth at the moment. Governments aim to create a fixed structure, something static. This means they cannot cause economic growth."
More rot. Governments pay employees, who spend their cash in the economy, thereby stimulating it - causing it to 'grow'.
Rich bankers take their money in to offshore tax-avoidance schemes - they do NOT re-circulate the capital within the economy.
And here's the final kicker:
"Search for 'Cafe Hayek' for some Austrian perspectives."
You are another disciple of Hayek - the man whose 'brilliant' ideas were pushed by Reagan & Thatcher - deregulate the wealthy, let them pay ever-falling amounts of tax, and it will all 'get better'.
Utter rot! The economies of the USA and UK followed this rubbish and - what a 'surprise' - the richest have got much, much richer, whilst everyone else's incomes have FALLEN as the rich have shifted all the capital OUT of the economy.
Deregulate the richest, and they sack people here in order to increase their own profitability!
But who cares? As long as the wealthy get richer and richer, eh?
Complain about this comment
Since the " econnermists" are trying o repackage into one unit the combined efforts of every AAA's hole within the orbit of Uranus from which the sun is no longer shining, then their can be but one name
Butt0cracy for themasses with the great Tony as bankrolled king of the cAAA's hell
Debt cannot be written off without wiping out powerful leveraged interests, so it will be kept on the books to inkfinity and beyond or mayan calender year 2013 whichever is sooner
Money and its ficticiuous derrivatives is/are being revealed as the numerators of power not wealth.The fact that central banks driven by political elites are shoring up balance sheets with money created from thin air proves this
The relationship of money to wealth as defined by true market forces will be removed and debt will be allowed to hang on assets whos market price is a fraction of book price/loan value with the help of 0% interest rates embalming fluid free on demand to those in high places
Complain about this comment
94 Johnny P
The fact is that the total tax take in this country is 46 percent. It is a matter of public record. It has wobbled along between 43 and 46 percent for donkeys years. Ken Clarke in the early nineties said that was the developed EU country average driven by heath and social cost expectations. So the statement that HMG effectively owns half of all private sector activity is entirely reasonable.
I am afraid I disagree that the masters of the universe are to blame. There are always masters of the universe about. It is the job of a government to govern and to regulate markets and also educate consumers. That is the key failure. Actually very little appears to have changed in the finance sector, most changes have come in the realisation that regulation is needed, so QED.
There is no such thing as a free market. The concept is a nonsense. All markets have to be regulated. It is a matter of how much. I am not sure capitalism as such exists.
If you take Browns Bubble froth away the economy is in decline and has been for sometime. Taking the froth away does not stop decline just shows what is there. If the economy takes a shock then some overshoot is inevitable. The fact that the overshoot is sorted out within 18 months, a fairly typical timescale does not mean the economy is in growth, it is a transient. The problem remains decline linked to poor strategic thinking. The fact the tax take decade after decade has run at 43 to 46 percent has to mean that the public sector has to decline sooner or later.
If the situation is better in countries nearby such as France and Germany then it means that their model is better, a model established by their governments.
In the light of govenments having a disproportionate number of property developers in office from Thatchers time onwards and nothing much else being around to offer growth the development of the financial sector underpinned by housing expenditure was a 'reasonable' thing to do, the fatal flaw was HMG effectively becoming a profit sharing partner in the financial activity and forgeting the regulation need.
The underlying economic decline relates to the vandalism done to the wealth creating sector - the private sector - in pretty much all areas other than finance. This has been overseen by government of all colours for decades who have seen the de facto manipulation of the UK property market as the way forward. The Great British public have happily gone along with this and bought ever increasing import volumes.
The merry song now is that manufacturing will save the day. That is a bit like saying the Mary Celeste is a good name for a cruise holiday. The public have voted governments in, they have gone along with the game, enjoyed short term gain, governments have not governed, now the long term bill is here and the public collectively have to expect a reversal of fortune. More particularily their children will pay the price of their parents partying.
Almost everywhere you look the madness is deeply embedded. I won't list the destruction of R and D facilites which are needed to provide innovative development and a health manufacturing base, lets look at something simple like food that everybody has to buy everyday
- Take a look at 'Fair Trade'. Fair trade for overseas countries, mainly farmers, yes I cannot disagree, I buy the brand myself. But the farmers here do not get a fair trade do they, they cannot apply for the label, they are shut out. And no I am not a farmer. Or take a look at air travel, is it any wonder it is in growth against other transport alternatives when the fuel has effectively no duty on it. So lets fly vegetables around the world. Or Prawns caught in the N Sea from the UK to the Far East for shelling and back here for sale and claim it is green to do so, yes it is going on, they are flown back and forth. If the imbalances are there at a micro level the macro level is unbalanced. People do not have to aid and abet this madness do they. If nobody buys then the practice stops very quickly. But it would seem there is an appetite for destruction. Just like the Blue Fin Tuna which is heading for extinction can be laid down in deep freeze storage for consumption when the species is gone and CITES exempt (CITES does not apply to extinct species) and 1/3rd of the surviving stock can be caught this year. Other Tuna species are in deep trouble but the last time I went in the supermarket I could barely get down the isle due to stacks of special offer BOGOF tuna deals, buy now, never been cheaper. pallet loads of it. Or perhaps the idea of catching declining sea fish stocks, pelletising them, and feeding them to supposed 'sustainable' farmed salmon who infest the wild species with sea lice threatening the native stock is a good idea. BTW This practice also concentrating some elements in the artifical food chain in the process. But lets switch from fish - how about cauliflowers, they are due to not be grown here, it will not be a matter of consumer choice, the supermarkets will buy elsewhere a few pennies cheaper so the farmers are giving up on producing them here. If a nation cannot produce its own cauliflowers what next.
If anybody seriously thinks this sort of approach to matters, which is endemic, is a basis for sustained growth they have a very serious delusion.
Complain about this comment
95 Sparty
Goodness, somebody else kept wake by trees coming down in the gale.
Complain about this comment
Glanafon ,This 24 /7/365 blog is great for insomniacs and you seem to be the most lucid poster on this board, probably because you are not obsessed by money as so many are, who post here.
Your logic bombs are causing the fine cracking in the system that will help it turn to dust at the appointed hour .
What ever you do ,don't stop now!
Complain about this comment
How about The Corporate State?
Complain about this comment
Goldstein and Blair's concept of "Oligarchical Collectivism" would appear to fit present circumstances quite well. Why look further?
Complain about this comment
98 sparty
yeah butt0cracy, no butt0cracy, maybe0cracy, yeah butt, no butt. You do not hide your mind as effectively as you think. lol. The zero in the middle is quite appropriate, could do with a few more.
'Hanging is too good for a man who makes puns; he should be drawn and quoted.' Fred Allen
There used to be intellectual giants, the current system seems to promote intellectual dwarves into positions of authority. Perhaps dwarfonomics is the things, after all we are dwarfed by it all. Help I've been dwarfed. Sorry. What a dwarf thing to say. Does sound upper class though.
Money, well I've had friends and aquaintences in all social classes. I have found all social classes are very similar really. One weekend at a shoot a well known minor royal, social class 1, got his man to break his car window with a rock because he had left his keys inside. A couple of days later I saw a bloke I know on the dole, social class 5, use a rock to break into his banger because of the same reason. The bloke on the dole went and got a replacement window from a scrappers, the royal sent his man to the garage and bought new. They were both of similar age, both equally irritated, both took the same action. It was quite striking to see both events. You gotta larf.
Complain about this comment
In my limited knowledge of my B grade O Level Economics gained 30 years ago I seem to remember we use to have a thing called a "mixed economy" which until Maggie and Ronnie tore apart seemed to work fairly well, could we not just go back to that?
Writingonthewall for chancellor btw
Complain about this comment
we'reallthievesandyou'reallmugsism
Complain about this comment
Good blog ,the comments section gives you all the names you need
exellent comments.
Complain about this comment
I don't there that there is 'new econonomics' or 'old economics' - there is just 'economics'.
Complain about this comment
I believe Gordon Brown has already given it a name
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/g20-summit/5097195/G20-summit-Gordon-Brown-announces-new-world-order.html
Complain about this comment
102 - ditto for mixed farming - essentially the basis for ecological agriculture, surely an unavoidable policy option if we are to stand any chance at co-existence with/on the planet.
fantastic blog, I haven't read all the posts yet but great to read so many erudite thoughts
as for a name I'd have to concur with 28, surely all the rest is just a game to distract us?
.. but I kinda like Scrapitalism and Crapitalism too! Of course the latte classes may prefer Frappetalism (with the happy accident of echoes of fatalism no less!).
Complain about this comment
State Plutocracy.
Complain about this comment
What is in a name ?? That which we call a poo still stinks as bad !!
Meanwhile, the Aussie dollar has crept yet nearer to parity with the USD !!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8356129.stm
I doubt they will care too much what anyone calls their economy so long as they've got jobs, their barbies and tinnies !!
Perhaps we should stop wasting time and effort and simply call our economy a "bad economy" and get on with sorting it out !!
Complain about this comment
Aahhh my peeeples,I knowwa.. I'ma thinks it's a no a freeee miieeeaaarrrcatt..no? ..simples!!
Complain about this comment
Financially Corrupt UK Economy?
110 v.funny, that's where we're going wrong - it's not a free market but a free meerkat! (with every recession)
Complain about this comment
Post 105 nautonier wrote: 'I don't think that there is 'new economics' or 'old economics' - there is just 'economics'.
--------------
On many things I agree with you ... but on this one I don't. Nations ignoring Dr W. Edwards Deming's insights are destined to fail ... killed by a mixture of arrogance, incompetence, self interest, greed, flawed practices and a whole heap of unintended consequences (just to name a few).
Complain about this comment
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8359775.stm
The flight has begun !! First, they move their HQ operations to Hong Kong and, now, they are selling their HQ building *for cash* !!
Do they know something we don't ??
Is this a damage limitation exercise ??
Are they worried that the blanket and ill-thought-out regulations to attempt to curb the "bad boys" will hurt the "good boys" more ??
Complain about this comment
New name for a new economy ??
Self-immolating State Lunacy !!
Complain about this comment
For fun on this horrid soggy day...
Evolving economy ( where its heading, nobody knows)
Eyeball economy ( maths with vision ) only one or two economists like Saint Vince Cable spotted what lay ahead.
BirdsNest economy (Lookout! the economic engine has moved east )
Creative economy ( QE )
Cobbler economy ( temporary fix )
Simple economy ( one new trading currency )
FatClub economy ( leaner times ahead)
Tectonic economy ( everything changed )
On another note re this blog, thanks guys its great thought provoking reading again after JJs demise.
Although I miss Alexander Curzon's to the point rants.
Complain about this comment
No 96 "But the farmers here do not get a fair trade do they, they cannot apply for the label, they are shut out."
There is a good and sufficient reason why the farmers in this country are not allowed to apply for that label !! It is simply because they are subsidised by the state whereas farmers else where are *NOT* !!
IF there are farmers that can prove that they *AND* their products are not subsidised by the state, then they may be allowed to apply for the *Fairtrade* label.
After all, this is all about the "Fair" part of the name. It would *NOT* be "Fair" to allow subsidised farmers the same rights to that name as unsubsidised farmers !!
Complain about this comment
116 not all agricultural products in the EU are subsidised, are they? I believe the local/organic movement is trying to get Fair Trade status for some EU products/struggling EU small-holders.
Complain about this comment
The reasons to keep governments out of general business is because politicians and their appointees are historically appalling at running businesses, subject to corruption and neopothism. Governments should be working and helping to set overall strategy, simplifying red-tape, speeding up planning processes and helping supporting & funding national imperatives. Unfortunately we have seen this government getting more involved in the first area and less in the second. e.g. Car scrappage short term measure and waste of money; lack of strategic plan has led to panic over electicity production, forcing down path of French nuclear power. They should have reformed planning permission for national imperative of renewable power 12 years ago, got on with Severn barrage, improved benefits for micro power production, to diversify generation and reduce outage risk from natural and terrorism risk
Complain about this comment
We are all waiting for the Tories to get elected and strip the country bare in a fever of neo-liberal ideology and in return for favours owed; sell off council houses? motorways? student debt? Later, Labour will return to power burning with anger at what has been done and a determined to bring in a radical agenda, with a state spending spree and revenge for past injustices.
What we desperately need is some consensus that we are close to an emergency situation - and some adult, long-term planning.
Ask yourself which are the top ten best governed nations in Europe? The chances are you will choose Benelux and Nordic countries, Germany, Switzerland - perhaps even Scotland. What do they have in common? They are all (v. usually) run by minority coalition governments. How about a GOAT coalition for the UK?
God knows, who doesn't think we need to do things differently in the future? Let's not re-run the last 30 years.
Complain about this comment
#113
Isn't that what happened to Woolworths ? sold the land and buildings from under their shops and leased them back, big addition to the balance sheet, bonuses for the top dogs and then company returned to the market, shareholders get a big payback (they were owned by private equity at the time).
When the downturn happened they had no collateral to borrow against and the rest is history.
I think it's called asset stripping in normal parlance.
Complain about this comment
What name you give it is largely irrelevant. However I note that in our current system the majority of young people are usually in debt. Debt is fed to them from the start of their higher education in the form of student loans and credit cards and perpetuated through their lives in other forms of credit.
Remove interest payments and credit would evaporate, but then the cost of virtually everything would equally fall. But it would not fall to nothing.
What would happen is that those who toiled would reap the benefits and that all their efforts would be rewarded in full.
As things stand the average working Joe is only likely to reap half of the benefits of his labour, the rest being paid in interest.
I am a self employed Joe, in my fifties, but I have three children, and I would prefer the value of all houses, including my own to drop by say 90%, because my children would ultimately benefit.
The more debt, the more interest that has to be paid.
And to place the young in debt trap before they even start work is a vicious and criminal act in my view.
Communism may be derided by capitalists, but morally it has much going for it.
Complain about this comment
All the talk is interesting, but it will make no difference. We have an elected dictatorship and enfeebled MPs – one of two parties will hand out the same sorry menu they’ve been dishing out for the last 3 decades. Tories that asset strip the country and hand out goodies to their friends in return for favours – and a Labour Party that knows nothing but a clumsy state spending spree and crude attempt at providing equal outcomes (rather than equal opportunities). The UK is near bankruptcy again, just like the last time Labour lost power (1979).
Surely there is an alternative? How about a hung parliament - an emergency “GOAT” coalition – and some long-term thinking?
Complain about this comment
@JohnnyParanoia:
"Where to start with your litany of inaccuracies?"
Ready when you are - you don't seem to have spotted any yet.
As glanafon confirms above, "half" is a perfectly reasonable way to approximate the proportion of our incomes spent by the government. For businesses, the government taxes their earnings directly, then it taxes whatever they pay their employees as well.
You also apparently want to deny that private enterprises mostly create wealth. When did you last grow/catch your own food, build your own shelter or create from scratch any of the other helpful/enjoyable things that surround you? You live in a pile of wealth created for you by others. This is obviously true, because you are posting messages on the Internet. You are not sitting in a puddle, naked, which is what you'd be doing if you were left entirely to your own devices.
Governments have two roles, in practice: 1. enforce laws that underpin the free market, and 2. intervene and redistribute according to popular whims. The former creates the conditions in which wealth can be created by free individuals. The latter does not create any wealth at all - it just moves it around. All the actual wealth creation is done by individual people pursuing their own interests.
It is true that larger corporations are often able to out-compete small businesses; this is partly to be expected due to the economy of scale, but sometimes it happens for entirely the wrong reasons, because only larger corporations are able to deal with the overhead of regulation.
You try to equate the mountains of new and increasingly petty/pointless regulations created every year with the ancient laws against burglary and kidnapping. Oddly, I am not swayed by this line of reasoning! There are such things as good and bad laws, you see.
You trot out the standard line about immigrants pushing down the price of domestic labour. That is a nationalist argument, frequently voiced by the BNP. It makes no sense. National borders are drawn on maps by politicians who like to carve the world up according to who is in charge of which piece. But in reality, people are just people, they can move around, and economies need hard working people to keep them going.
Polish immigrants fill areas of the labour market that British "workers" refuse to take on. There is surely no noise more disgusting than a British person complaining about immigrants doing all the jobs that we can't be bothered to do ourselves. They also set up businesses (e.g. shops catering for other immigrants) and help to grow the economy. And British "natives" complain because they don't like seeing a Polish newspaper in a shop…
"People DON'T just sit and starve you know, they have these things called 'riots', and 'revolutions'."
The idiots do, anyway, especially when whipped up by political manipulators who just want to get their hands on some power.
"Governments pay employees, who spend their cash in the economy, thereby stimulating it - causing it to 'grow'".
Great idea! By the way, my ladder isn't long enough. I know - I'll saw the bottom off and attach it to the top. Hey presto!
"Rich bankers take their money in to offshore tax-avoidance schemes - they do NOT re-circulate the capital within the economy."
What do you imagine they're going to do with it, then? Eat it? Weave it into suits?
As for your understanding of Hayek - I urge you to actually read him, if you really care about any of this stuff. Start with 'The Road To Serfdom'. How on earth can you believe that the UK government has been following his advice any time in the last ten years? They've been doing the precise opposite - steadily eroding the freedom of individuals.
Complain about this comment
We witness the evolution (process) of capital / capitalism. That is, the ongoing process of capital accumulation. We live through the ongoing decline of capital / capitalism. To note that we live through the process of the decline of capital, therefore, requires no new name.
The objective laws (ongoing whether humanity is aware or not) determine that we live at a very confused moment in the process of capital accumulation. A very confused moment in the evolution of our species.
Within the dialectical process, we see deepening decline of capital, also the negation of capital and also the reflection of the future society.
The future society can (for the first time in the history of our species) only come to being through the conscious decision of humanity. Otherwise, we will just be another failed species. That is, decline and disintegration from now on. No way out.
jimd.
Complain about this comment
Dempster wrote:
"Communism may be derided by capitalists, but morally it has much going for it."
If you can say that, I wonder if you know what communism is. It's basically about punishing the productive and rewarding the unproductive. Also there's this saying "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
You don't really need the internet, do you? So that's going to be disconnected. And you only really need one suit of clothes. And you can wash them yourself each evening, so you don't need a washing machine - that can go. And you'll be busy washing your clothes, so no need for a TV, etc.
And about your ability - you work 8 hours a day? But really you have the ability to work about 16, don't you, if you're honest. So those are your new working hours. (And weekends aren't that necessary either.)
Perfect - now you give according to your maximum ability, and you only take according to your minimal need.
The choice is simple - either you let people keep what they produce, and trade with each other, with the result that humanity steadily makes itself better off as a whole, or you confiscate whatever anyone produces so "you" (some central authority) can apportion it "fairly", i.e. punishing the productive and rewarding the unproductive, with the result that everyone spends all their time fighting for a bigger share instead of producing anything themselves.
Leaving aside the markedly different practical outcomes, which of these approaches do you really think has the most going for it, "morally"?
Complain about this comment
#96 glanafon Ah yes the flying vegetables and the flying prawns, better than the flying pickets.
Have you considered flying pall bearers. Someone that lives a long way from the UK, has never been to the UK and has no desire to go to the UK has nonetheless established a business arranging to bury British dead in British graves. They offer a full service product and can fly in pall bearers for those occasions when everyone in the UK is too busy flying vegetables around to attend to burying their own dead.
Did I not read somewhere that the economically inactive population (formerly known as the unemployed) is at an all time high. I wonder why that could be.
Anyway gotta fly.
Complain about this comment
#125 danielearwicker. Yes, very good. In the US 500 individuals have aggregate wealth of $5 trillion - presumably they acquired this wealth through their superior work ethic, maybe working 16 hour days as oppossed to the 8 hour days favoured by the lazy.
Maybe these people have expensive tastes - what do you imagine that they might spend their money on? Or, maybe they don´t spend it and maybe this has an effect on the velocity of money circulation, which in turn has a depressing effect on macro economic activity. I don´t know, it´s so hard to look at facts when prejudice and invective is so much more entertaining.
So communists don´t have washing machines, TV´s, or the Internet. Maybe you will find that poor people don´t have access to these things - and that there is really no need to look for any further sub classifications. But then we need our own justifications don´t we - much better to sneer at poor people and imagine that they are poor because they are either evil or stupid - not like you or me at all.
Ah I feel "morally" cleansed; almost ready to make up some more lies about poor people and leverage these lies to justify bombing and killing them.
Complain about this comment
To danielearwicker
Excellently put.
You have a point of course, but by the same token communism doesn’t necessarily mean
It's basically about punishing the productive and rewarding the unproductive. It would only do this if that was your intention, which giving what you have written I don’t suspect it is.
In any event I do not propose communism, I simply point out that intrinsically it is fairer that what we currently have.
My concern is not for myself but for those who come after me. Admittedly I have a vested interest being a father of three; but more particularly I am concerned for all those who are about to inherit what we leave behind.
And what have we left them?
Well an awful lot of debt, which they have to repay.
If the young spoke with one voice, it would not be unreasonable for them to shout, ITS YOUR DEBT NOT OURS, WHY SHOULD WE SETTLE IT ON YOUR BEHALF.
In essence from their perspective, we give them a mountain climb, when we should be giving them a level playing field.
Complain about this comment
Well, I'm for calling it FASCISM! Call me old-fashioned, but the classics are eternal.
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
Golly, that definition was written in hind-sight! Maybe we should borrow a phrase from the Czechs..."Fascism with a smiling face" perhaps?
How about neo-fascism which will allow us to strike the bits about a dictator and racism...we can substitute a ruling power elite for the dictator...it doesn't really matter whom you elect, once in office they carry out their own agenda and don't listen to the people.
Maybe it would be more trendy to call it Fascism-LITE! All the flavor but less filling...or less full-filling of the original definition, but given time, the authoritarianism will grow and grow. That is the classic pattern.
Mountebanque-ism? Certainly the mountebanks are in charge...since "spam" caught on....how about "Monty-banque economy" because it DOES resemble something from a Monty Python sketch.
Destructionism or a Destructionist Economy.
Deconstructionist Economics...because no one is sure what deconstructionism means in the first place but it always SEEMS to mean something.
Ah, how about IMPLOSIONISM!
If you want something with a built-in graphic...let's call it the OUROBOROS ECONOMY! That carries with it the image of capitalism devouring itself!
Complain about this comment
To go back to the question in our sponsor's headline: have we actually got a new economy to assign a new name to yet? Personally I think not; we are still stuck with what I would describe as *parasitism*, and until we replace that with something seriously different (and better!) the old name will have to stay. Most parasites tend not to try and kill of their host organism, but clearly the parasites with which our economy was infested came close to forgetting that, and as a result very nearly finished us off.
Until our economic model is revised the same problems will remain with it; the symptoms may go into remission but the disease will still be there.
As a self - confessed non - economist I cannot profess to have a ready answer to this. Needless to say this is not a source of comfort; all I want is for the parasites to get their hands out of my wallet.
Complain about this comment
Arm n leg times
Arh yes the flyimg dead coming home on a wing and a prayer - to the walking dead, eating the living extinct. Listening to the grateful dead en route presumably. A true family reunion.
Now then me ol' China Crisis, just what has got you so jovial. Are you having a off day, or should we be worried that you have spotted something.
Don't worry its all answered, by George, two opposing concepts are no problem at all to modern man.
''Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.'' George Orwell
I know the laziness of quotes upsets you so here is another one, by George. As family reunions have been mentioned. ''A family with the wrong members in control; that, perhaps, is as near as one can come to describing England in a phrase''. You see me ol' China Crisis, nowt is new. And people far cleverer than me have been there first.
Never mind, or should that be Nevermind, what will follow Georges vision, perhaps we will be in the Age of Nostalgia soon, you would love that ; )
Yep I think the Age of Nostalgia beckons, there are signs of it already. LARP, Live Action Role Playing, thats the way to go. A new form of training on the job. (Chuckle)
Complain about this comment
112. At 3:18pm on 14 Nov 2009, leanomist wrote:
Post 105 nautonier wrote: 'I don't think that there is 'new economics' or 'old economics' - there is just 'economics'.
--------------
On many things I agree with you ... but on this one I don't. Nations ignoring Dr W. Edwards Deming's insights are destined to fail ... killed by a mixture of arrogance, incompetence, self interest, greed, flawed practices and a whole heap of unintended consequences (just to name a few).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Much of what is happening today in national, regional, global economics is I think due to a 'new era of economics' rather than 'new economics'.
Until about four months ago I would have entirely agreed with you and I have actually been posting saying the 'world' and 'economics' have changed myself but having thought about it further, I do not think this is the case - I think that the changes are almost, if not entirely 'environmental' in the sense of barriers, borders, trading partners, resources etc.
It is these massive environmental, technological, systems, supplies changes that have collided into a 'great economic correction.'
This I think is promulgating and forcing a re-think where national governments have to ensure their national economies are robust and 'self starting and resourcing' and can function just on internal demand if necessary - a 'safety mechanism' based on sustainability. This is I think a new economic philosophy regarding organising and structuring economies and trading zones to be robust enough to trade together or stand alone. But I do not think this is 'new economics' - it is just a matter of our poliltical and government systems are just not up to managing our political economies - we need new governmental structures to handle the decision making under the new environmental conditions.
This also has to do with why the UK is not recovering as fast as some of its Eurozone partners - since if the UK economy has a weak internal economic structure and is not receovering as fast as expected - its no use blaming the 'global recession'.
Some countries do better than others e.g. Canada, Germany, Scandinavian countries and others are better than the UK at doing this - obviously!
A 'new era of economics' where both the likely/unlikely consequences of any economic activity, have to be more closely evaluated and this takes a good deal more forethought and brainpower that we have seen in recent years. My concern is that very few politicians/decision makers have or use this ability - and that is where the analysis is needed.
I am not in favour of a decription 'new economics' because I think it allows the politicians/government who are significantly to blame for e.g. much of the UK's economic difficulty - to argue that a new type of economic woes has befallen the country which could not be seen coming.
I say the UK's, world and global economic problems are mainly down to bad economic and financial management - easy money, get rich too quick, something for nothing, greed, mentality etc we've heard just about every decsription of this general malaise on this and other blogs.
Ask yourself what has really changed over the last few years in the UK, Europe or anywhere else around the globe to have brought an a new era of economics - I'd accept that we have a new 'era of economics' but not 'new economics' as a technical or philosophically different economic way of thinking.
All that has changed is the 'goal posts' and we have some very strange new pitches to the playing fields now including satellites in space sending billions of dollars around the world per second in global trading:
- the geographical trade and finance exchange of existing markets
- some markets, borders, barriers have disappeared, barriers and demarkations
- some markets have merged, gone regional and global
- technology moves everything faster - people, money goods and services
- cash is easier to print
- cash became easier to lend/borrow
- new financial instruments create expotential growth of risks
- Barriers, borders - many of these have changed
- new entrants to the world trade market have become big players
Change, change, change - to the environment, rules, players, stakes etc - but not to the economics
The changes in the global economy in the last 20, 10 and even the last 5 years have been immense - but despite all of the elitist economic 'grandees' eliciting their economic edicts from high about there being a magical repository of innovative economic theories and policies - most if not all of this is simply a re-hash of what we already know.
If anyone has some magical new theory on economics to add here to stun us all with pearls of economic wisdom I'd be happy to recant and grovel towards trying to understand it (with a little help behind the scenes from my favourite economic guru).
The UK economy, for example, is in a mess, mainly because of bad economic management by our government and blaming the UK's woeful plight on the global economic malaise has some justification but is plain old 'buck passing'.
The UK economy is very poor shape because of well explained reasons but this is not the real reason.
The UK government (1997-2006) particularly decided to play the new government finance game of 'boom and bloat' without knowing the rules and having the understanding how to relate cause and effect for their actions. Now that the 'they' and the UK have lost heavily they're trying not only to learn new rules for the game - but to understand them at the same time.
Hence, trade, money flows, debts, liabilities have been intenationaisled by banks and other businesses in a giant global mess - this is as much an administrative, legal and information problem without needing a new economic theory to explain the new situation. The basic rules and theories of economics still apply - all money/value/mathematical issues are based on the simple formula based on the Present value of a £1 - that is our entire globalised banking, finance system - everything!
Nothing has changed in economic theory terms - ooportunity cost, supply and demand, monetarism, keynes - all have their place and are relevant.
The world, regional, national, county and local economies have just been through too much change too quickly - the economic policemen - the politicians, central bankers, regulators have all been weak and have lost control and with weak accounting and banking systems exacerbating the changes.
That is all that has happened - pandora's Box, The Sorcerer's Apprentice - it's all expanded and got out of hand and the politicians are ultimately to blame because they control the direction - in a democracy they are our elected representatives to keep things operating properly.
Many government politicians have failed like with the Lbaour government in the UK being one of the worst offenders - but not all countries are in the same weakened position and the world order is changing but this is not new economics but a new era.
I don't think we are far apart on this and I think that the difference is mainly semantics - but semantics matter when we have devious politicians who will lie and cheat for their own meglamaniac objectives.
Accordingly, I disagree that the current economic problems or conditions are due to 'new economics' as another or new kind of excuse for our criminal liar political class that afflicts us.
'They' have stoked the fire and got us all burned!
This is not intended as an attack on those who disagree with me on this - I think that e.g. the EU is worth examining in more detail as we have seen the EU intervene inside the UK to force our UK government into doing something positive over UK banking structure. This I think is very significant an has gone almost un-noticed by the media. This strikes at the nub of the issue - the debate in the new era of economics should I think be about organisation, decision making, type of politics, accountability - rather than about e.g. how bad or incompetent our economists are.
'New economics' requires 'new behaviour' as economics is based on behaviour such as the assumption than individuals seek to maximise their personal wealth and that this can lead to greed - We know this kind of divine economic principle is generally true and until we see major changes in this kind of behaviour then I think that any claims towards 'new economics' is tinkering at the edges of reality.
Too much emphasis is placed on economic forecasting albeit this being very important and economists have been better than others at doing this but little is written about there being signs of truly new economic behaviour such as abandoning e.g.
- the relentless and destructive pursuit of economic growth which is very damaging and can be explained very easily by basic economic theories
- 'zero' global population control
When we see significant changes in economic behaviour - then I think we may then genuinely see 'new economics'.
Another issue, countries that have been engaged in war(s) have not done so well in recent years - the age of wrecking a country or continent and then leaving it to fend for itself economically has passed - the reality is that these issues now stay with all of the participants as a long term bundle of costs.
However, as I say, it may just mainly be semantics I think! The real question is what action needs to be taken by policycmakers/senior decision makers at the macro and micro economic policy levels?
The focus in the discussion should I think be about what ground level, structural, organisational, legal and other changes would bring about an economic revival - a 'new economic era' in the UK based on best practice, protecting UK citizens,full employment etc - rather than searching for 'new economics' so that the UK government (Groan!) - can get some sort of fresh or new economic ideas, for their new rhetoric, so as to try and 'sell the next bribe'
Complain about this comment
#128
One day we will be old and the young will then be in charge, do you think they will look down upon us favourably in our dotage or will they say 'it's your be, you made it, you lie in it' ?
You reap what you sow.
SF.
I'd just call it fraud.
Complain about this comment
#133 me
doh! misse the 'd' out of be :)
Complain about this comment
Addeddum to 132 (as if it wasn't long enough)
The name for the new era in economics could perhaps be helped significantly by soneone with an advanced knowledge of anthrapology in respect of explaining the occurrence of the very deeply ingrained, innate destructive behaviour of primates that seems to be prevalent in most modern political economies.
However, I warn you that it might make 'monkeys' out of our Prime Minister and Chancellor!
I believe that the 'answer' is that we should try and be more like termites or ants and not wasps or bees as these are too political.
Complain about this comment
@armagediontimes
You mention 500 individuals in the US with $5 trillion, and you wonder how they obtained it. There are basically two ways:
1. they took it by force, which is illegal (unless you're the government of course) or
2. they were given it willingly by other people who wanted some kind of goods or services in return.
The sneaky way to take advantage of the first method is to blur the line between government and private enterprise - find some way to get a politician to pull the strings for you, so you end up owning a captive market, or - as with the BBC - get a cunningly named "license fee" that guarantees you $4bn a year.
But leaving aside such malevolent trickery (which I certainly don't condone) we have to assume the second method was used. In that case, the question of how long or hard they worked isn't relevant - you might spend several hours trying to go to the toilet but that wouldn't increase the value of whatever you produced. What matters is what they can offer to others. A billionaire is someone who has given 1 dollar/pound of value to a billion people, or a thousand to a million people, etc. And their enormous wealth doesn't actually confer absolute power on them - if a billionaire wanted you to run naked down the street, they could offer you money, but it's up to you whether you accept the offer.
"Maybe you will find that poor people don´t have access to these things.. washing machines, TV´s, or the Internet"
In the dreadfully unfair US, at least 99% of households have at least one TV. The average number of TVs per household is 2.4. There are more TVs than people in the US. Across the EU in 2001, 95% of households have a washing machine. In the UK 90% of homes have internet access. If we interpret "access" more broadly, launderettes and internet cafes mean that almost no one is without access to any of these things.
As is so often the case, your critique of the free market system involves focusing on the top 2% and the bottom 2% of society, and completely ignoring the 96% in between who - despite the efforts of 20th/21st century governments to the contrary - are still far better off than they could ever be in an authoritarian, centrally planned socialist state.
"But then we need our own justifications don´t we - much better to sneer at poor people and imagine that they are poor because they are either evil or stupid - not like you or me at all."
"Sneering", like the evil character in a film, is obviously not on. So I'm quite happy to agree that we should not sneer at people. On the other hand, you have to concede that as well as luck, as free individuals we have the power to make our own decisions, so it's not *entirely* down to luck. If I claimed that everyone's lot in life was apportioned to them according to a perfect scheme that rewarded the good and punished the evil, that would clearly be nonsense. But nor would be be true to say that it's entirely down to luck.
If someone repeatedly is successful in so many of their dealings with other people, it cannot be down to chance alone - they must be doing something right. And some people's behaviour is wilfully self-destructive, while others are simply apathetic or can't see the point of studying, getting an education, or a job, or making a contribution to their community. People do vary in their attitudes, and their attitudes are to an extent born out of the signals they get from the world they live in.
Unless you are the poorest person in the entire world (at odds of six billion to one) then there is always someone else worse off than you - and the odds are the same in the other direction too. There's a great deal of luck involved, but so what? We are not actually hurt by the fact that - say - a footballer earns a lot of money. We can ignore it. We have it very easy compared to people in - say - North Korea. And so we each have the opportunity to make something of whatever we've got. I'm never going to be a prima ballerina, but I've learned to get over that and move on.
Ultimately we will never be able to extinguish differences between people, and so some will always be judged luckier than others. So all we can focus on is people's attitudes to how they can improve their own situation. If everyone who starts off with misfortune ends up bitter and apathetic, blaming their condition on their own bad luck, or that other people have better luck, then what effect do you think that has on equality?
If you require perfect equality, you will need to apply a horrific amount of force. So it has to be hoped that you will settle for less than perfect equality - that's just how it is. Fortunately, an unequal world is not actually a disaster even for its poorest citizens, if they are in fact rather wealthy in historical terms, which is exactly how it is in the UK, US and Europe today, and pretty soon in China and India.
"leverage these lies to justify bombing and killing them."
Okay, now you've totally lost me - it's governments that do that, not small businesses or corporations. What exactly *are* you complaining about?
Complain about this comment
Somebody has made a right pigs ear of this website. I'm posting from FF because the site no longer functions in IE8. The posts are not visible.
Soros has warned us for long enough about the dangers and unfairness of markets. I am getting tired of hearing about how economists have "assumed that markets were good enough" or "thought the crisis was totally unexpected" or said that "nobody succeeded in predicting this crisis" or etc. The writing has been plainly and clearly on the wall for anyone who wished to look. To claim ignorance and surprise is just disingenuous.
Kick them all out, let a new crowd in.
Complain about this comment
Someone above wrote the following comment:
""half" is a perfectly reasonable way to approximate the proportion of our incomes spent by the government."
Spent on whom? People and things within the nation? If so than presumably this money recirculates somehow? Does it then matter what percentage is taken by the government?
Complain about this comment
@danielearwicker,
"communism doesn’t necessarily mean It's basically about punishing the productive and rewarding the unproductive. It would only do this if that was your intention"
Not so - the intentions (good or bad) of the people erecting a communist system cannot somehow magically flow out into the world and direct what will happen. The miserable outcome is a given, based on how the system works.
"In any event I do not propose communism"
Phew!
"I simply point out that intrinsically it is fairer that what we currently have."
How?
"My concern is not for myself but for those who come after me. Admittedly I have a vested interest being a father of three;"
Absolutely right - most individuals end up with families of their own, and so are concerned about the long term. Why should you apologise for that as a "vested interest"? Why should anyone have to apologise for defending their own interests, as long as they aren't harming anyone else?
"but more particularly I am concerned for all those who are about to inherit what we leave behind. And what have we left them? Well an awful lot of debt, which they have to repay."
Indeed - but you must be talking about government debt?
"If the young spoke with one voice, it would not be unreasonable for them to shout, ITS YOUR DEBT NOT OURS, WHY SHOULD WE SETTLE IT ON YOUR BEHALF. "
Ah, now you're talking. That certainly isn't communism - it's a tax payer's revolt!
Workers of the world unite - you have nothing to lose but your P60 (I know I put it somewhere...)
Complain about this comment
@FrankSz
"Does it then matter what percentage is taken by the government?"
It does indeed. There are four ways money can be spent. Search on YouTube for: "The 4 Ways to Spend Money by Milton Friedman (HD)"
Further to that, consider the fact that every person's intelligence has something to contribute to economy. We all have a little bit of knowledge that is important - it mostly concerns our own needs, desires and abilities, but they are important things (to us, anyway). No government has the ability to gather all that information, much less act on it. They can only make averaged-out, aggregated decisions than treat people uniformly, ignoring the fine detailed information about the diversity of people's opinions and wants. And more importantly, that distributed knowledge is not just about what people want, but also about what they can do in order to get it - what they can generate, make, how they can improve things.
By allowing people to keep their own money, we are more able to take advantage of the intelligence and knowledge that is distributed throughout all the individuals in the economy. The more of their income people are allowed to keep, the smarter our economy will be. Those individuals will be able to make decisions using knowledge only they have, and will be able to direct whatever resources they have to get where they want to be.
A free economy has access to the combined intelligence of tens or hundreds millions of people. A centrally planned economy is as dumb as a few hundred bureaucrats, or perhaps even a single dictator.
This is why centrally planned economies grind to a halt, while free economies race ahead.
Complain about this comment
I have`nt read all the posts yet,so apologies if it`s already been said,but I`m rather fond of Max Keiser`s description of our current(it will end sooner or later)economic enslavement:
"Gulag casino economy".
Complain about this comment
#136 danielearwicker Why do you have to assume that the super wealthy obtained their wealth through providing value to others. Instead of assuming things would it not be more appropriate to look at facts?
So 99% of households in the US have access to at least one TV. In Kenya (not in the bottom 2% of nations, and never a communist state) somewhere between 17% and 32% of the population have access to a TV. No-one knows the exact number because no-one has bothered to conduct an accurate survey.
In Cameroon only 2% of the population have access to the internet.
In Afghanistan the UN estimates that UK/US policies will result in the deaths of upward of 300,000 Afghan children. Where is their freedom of choice? Where is the evidence that these children have spurned the chance to "make something of themselves"?
Footballers do not make a lot of money by comparison to the wealth of the super rich. You only think they make a lot of money by comparing their income to yours. We are all hurt by this. Why should Usmanov be allowed to own shares in Arsenal? How is it that a man who admitted to ordering a F1 racing driver to deliberately crash can remain in control of QPR?
Why was it OK for Manchester City to be owned by a man who is accused by Amnesty International of multiple and grave human rights abuses?
Don´t you know that bombing the poor is what it is all about? Do you not see any news? It costs $1 million/year/US soldier in Afghanistan. Do you think the average GI is paid $1 million/year?
What do you think happens to the difference between $1 million and 1 soldiers pay? Maybe you might find that it finds its way into the hands of the super rich - those very same people that you assume provide value to others through the medium of free exchange. Maybe I´m out of touch but I don´t see too many people requesting to be bombed. Do you?
Complain about this comment
137 frank
I havent done an inventory, but my guess is the ones with independence are the ones who have got it right. There is nothing more deadly than an interested party to swing interpretation to the extremes of (un)certainty limits. Put a new lot in and you go around the loop again. The issue is independence.
132 nautonier
The key is that risk was removed - was clearly shown to have been successfully removed because the taxpayer slid the bung, capitalism on the way up, socialism on the way down, capitalism on the way up again, it already happening. Howver - Put risk back and the game functions. Putting the risk back is imperative. getting rid of the berks who allowed this will help the purge, a political purge is therefore inevitable as people want to forget, move forward and put it in the past.
However the problem up to a (major) point remains low labour cost zones undermining UK activity.
There are ways of dealing with this but most of them are not helpful to propping up taxation. It is not taxation evasion (illegal), or avoidance (legal), it just involves working smart, cutting out unnecessary stages, minimising overhead, reducing structural complexity. Ruthlessly cutting out anything that can be avoided, shortcircuiting wherever possible. eliminating sequential handling in supply chains.
The impact of low labour zones reduces the opportunity here. The pressure to smart work in response demands more proactive behaviour than historically has occurred here. In some cases transferable skills do not exist. You are not looking for cogs, you are looking for semi- independent decisonmakers with networking capability. All the time the terracotta army is getting more skilled, more qualified, more R&D. they won't stand still.
The only disadvantge the low labour costs zones have are distance from market coupled with working in inflexible mass production models. distance from the market is not an issue on its own, nor is inflexible mass production on its own, the two coupled are. So in many respects I do not see the problem as work, there is work, but it is a particular type of work, and in response to the situation the more efficent working practise reduces the number of people needed and therefore reduces governments opportunity to tax. A reduction in tax take spells for major problems in the public sector providing services to the general public. The money is most unlikely to be there at present levels. That has profound implictions for society as members will have to be more independent and more responsible, and the public sector smaller, it is inevitable. You have to put decision making responsiblity back into the community to avoid the French Revolution problem of revolving heads. Money is simply a way of rationing access to resources so rationing there will be.
The problem is not economics, it is a different environment with Darwinism in action.
Complain about this comment
138 frank
The money is spent by government as it sees fit, often without reference. It is often spent unwisely, wasted. It is often spent abroad buying in technology and equipment to the benefit of the supplier nation, helping develop their infrastructure further. It can be used to fund a war the majority of people did not want. It can be used for political expediency to buy critical votes from economically inactive groups. It can be used for surveilence, DNA databases etc etc. None of these activities appear to 'add' to the economy as such. The reason the US traditionally rebounds faster than most countries is, as far as I am aware, because it is a lower tax regime.
Complain about this comment
142 Arm 'n' a Wedgie
You see this is why I never bother arguing with you on your home turf. Your such a spoilsport. You need to realise the only way anybody can continue these sort of games is by demonising the victim. It is terribly common. Terribly effective. It is quite an odd experience it is an attempted virtual assasination.
Complain about this comment
#143 glanafon. you doin it all wrong.
No risk has been removed - it has been transferred to the mass of the population. Removal of risk could have been accomplished by wiping out the "too big to fails" and a general debt jubilation. This has not happened and neither will it.
The end result is terminal since the general population cannot cover the risks. In the UK RBS has a balance sheet the size of the UK economy. JP Morgan has a derivatives portfolio of $89 trillion or about 1.5 times the size of the global economy.
Low cost labour zones are a problem - but not as much as you seem to be implying. All you gotta do is get some sanity back. You don´t need any great skills to be a pall bearer - it is just madness to start flying these people around. If you want to eat prawns peel your own. Why should that be controversial? What kind of person wants to fly their prawns to Thailand to have some one peel them for them and then fly them back again? It has nothing to do with low cost labour - and everything to do with madness.
Complain about this comment
143. At 10:53pm on 14 Nov 2009, glanafon wrote:
132 nautonier
The key is that risk was removed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes - also in terms of 'risk', some of the UK banks should have been allowed to fail subject to 'ring fencing' savers accounts - shareholders are risk takers and excess bad risk taking has been rewarded - this isn't the 'failure of markets' or market economic its the worst kind of economic meddling by rewarding bad banks for their failure. Its ... 'Goodwinomics'.
Yes - Cheap foreign competition/UK asset raiding has helped destroy this country's manufacturing base as part of the 'Wimbledonisation' of the critical UK business assets.
I see what you say over-lapping with my post 132 - the UK is still coming to terms with all the subtle and damaging economic changes that the politicians have allowed the UK to get sucked into in recent years and the UK has not even started getting to grips with the changes that are needed to set the UK on the right economic course going forward.
I'd like to see real 'new economics' but seeing is believing and the UK is just drifting economically and politically and our entire economy is supported only by huge debts/deficit.
There is a sign of some change in UK economic behaviour - households are becoming averse to and are paying off debt - but this could be reversed 'overnight' if the banks started chucking mortgage loan around again in the future - so this is only a temporary change in behaviour.
I hear some college professor at Oxford is to give huge chunk of his future earnings to a new charity - that's what I call a real change of behaviour but how many will or can really afford to follow his lead?
New measures of economic recession/performance are needed based on output/debt/deficit and not just government bloated spending forming a large part of GDP stats?
Complain about this comment
#145 glanafon What is there to argue about?
Complain about this comment
40. At 4:59pm on 13 Nov 2009, oddknee wrote:
When will all you (b)ankers who think it's best to keep on blaming a lack of governance and the tardy regulators for this messy struggle get some values ? Want to perpetuate this and live in a police state where anything goes unless you get caught ? When on earth would you ever first blame bad policing for a crime and not the robber for stealing your family silver ? Is this too big a leap for you lot ? I assume you will of course maintain your moral low ground and absolve the burgler next time your house gets screwed !
===========
Whilst I tend to agree with the righteous anger you display, I would like to point out that in every aspect of the private lives of us plebs, we are spied upon, fined and generally regulated to an extreme. CRBs for Sunday School teachers now, a new CRB for every role, Bin Police, Litter Police, Police following home a Lady who threatened to Wallop her child, School Catchment Police etc etc. It seems only Bankers and Politicians are really free, and look at the mess they have got us in to!
Time to change the Political Establishment, out with the Lib-Lab-Cons.
Complain about this comment
123. At 6:41pm on 14 Nov 2009, danielearwicker wrote:
@JohnnyParanoia:
"Where to start with your litany of inaccuracies?"
==========
I disagree with your Immigration example. I want work, I'm qualified, skilled and experienced, I'm also a Married English male with a family, so I don't come as cheap as the Indian Nationals brought over on the intra-company transfer scheme that replaced me. I'm happy to compete, but until we Globalise Taxes and Prices as well as wages, then I have no chance, and neither does my MP of getting my vote until they take into account my interests.
Complain about this comment
Post 132: glanafon - IMHO "a new economics" is not here yet, but it is starting to emerge - following on from post 71 ...
"Economics is the social science that studies the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services" (Wiki).
IMHO Just like other 'sciences', 'economics' (as defined above) has been functionalised, is to narrow in scope and is effectively dead. The failure all around us now is testament to this. It fails to account for the values (and/or the lack of values) people uphold, their beliefs, the political systems, leadership and management practices, the environment, the intrinsic motivation within people and social relationships that exist.
The fact that we are comparing ourselves more and more to basic animals (i.e. species with very low intellect) arguably shows how low we have now fallen, and how moral values have been progressively jettisoned from the field of play. The fact that economics today is more about how people make money from money (wealth manipulation), rather than adding any real value (wealth creation), is also testament to this, and the purpose of money as a basic bartering system has been almost completely forgotten. This is the world of Poweromics, which is still very much in operation today, with no moral/ethical values, standards or rules, and seeks to manipulate the system for ones own gain ... and it has failed the vast majority ... but has successfully transferred yet more wealth to a small minority - the already wealthy (even from those not yet born - eg spiraling Government debt due to bailouts/failure).
Ignoromics will gradually reduce as the majority of people's lives get much worse ... but Government's will no doubt create wars and blame other people, to divert people's attentions/anger away from themselves, the real villians & from what's really going on.
Some countries are already challenging Poweromics and turning themselves around (e.g. http://poweromics.blogspot.com/2009/10/asking-questions-doing-things.html ), kicking out Poweromics (e.g. poor leadership, management, corruption) and using lean management practice (and Leanomics) to improve overall well-being and to create a sustainable prosperous 'economy'. Those that fail to act will fail to survive, and will die by their own ignorance, arrogance and ineptitude. Those current leaching off the others like a plague of locusts will also eventually destroy all the fields they are feeding off, and/or will find a new resistant strains that 'repel attacks' ... and those places where Leamomics starts to thrive will have no time/interest in 'parasitic organisms'.
'Leaders' looking to deflect blame, rather change the system (as well as the way they lead/manage), will be given short shrift soon ... and IMHO that time is not very far away.
Complain about this comment
Post 147 - "I hear some college professor at Oxford is to give huge chunk of his future earnings to a new charity - that's what I call a real change of behaviour but how many will or can really afford to follow his lead?"
------
Just another small/individual example of Leanomics I would suggest - it's worth noting more young people/graduates are starting to shun the traditional corporate world ... as they also see the world very differently too ... and they are unlikely to remain on a 'sinking ship' either ...
Complain about this comment
No 117 " 116 not all agricultural products in the EU are subsidised, are they? I believe the local/organic movement is trying to get Fair Trade status for some EU products/struggling EU small-holders."
Not all subsidies are paid in cash to the individual farmers themselves. A tariff or import restriction is just as much a subsidy and applies nation/area-wide.
Furthermore, Fairtrade is about getting *Internationally FAIR* prices for the producers. I seriously doubt that any local/organic farmer can afford to live on the prices paid to the African farmers, even through Fairtrade !! And social security is *ALSO* a form of subsidy !!
Complain about this comment
No 120 "Isn't that what happened to Woolworths ? sold the land and buildings from under their shops and leased them back, big addition to the balance sheet, bonuses for the top dogs and then company returned to the market, shareholders get a big payback (they were owned by private equity at the time)."
Not quite the same thing. Woolies is a local (i.e. British) company with little or no significance outside of these shores. HSBC has large holdings and businesses everywhere in the world.
As far as property is concerned, they have far larger portfolios else where, especially in the East !!
As for the lease-back, I suspect they are simply minimising the dislocation of operations. They will "need" the current premises until their "slimming down" operations are completed, at which point, they will probably move to smaller, cheaper premises commensurate with their business here !!
This will not be the first time they moved HQ operations to another country and it may not be the last !! Their history is fascinating, to say the least !!
Complain about this comment
No 123 An interesting response. I think many of your points are rather valid. What we need are more wealth-creators and less whingers !!
Complain about this comment
I reckon "Social Capitalism" would be a good description
Complain about this comment
I reckon "Social Capitalism" is a good description
Complain about this comment
#130 "Most parasites tend not to try and kill of their host organism, but clearly the parasites with which our economy was infested came close to forgetting that, and as a result very nearly finished us off."
Sorry to be pedantic, but almost *ALL* parasites will kill the host at some point in time !!
What you are thinking of are "symbiotes" that co-exist with the hosts and are usually beneficial to both parties. A good example are the "friendly bacteria" in your tummy that is now so fashionable and so beloved of the advertising world for yoghurt-based products !!
"...all I want is for the parasites to get their hands out of my wallet."
One treatment for parasites is a good dose of antibiotics. Perhaps we can discover an antibiotic that will treat these financial parasites *WITHOUT* killing the patient !!
Complain about this comment
#131 "Yep I think the Age of Nostalgia beckons, there are signs of it already. LARP, Live Action Role Playing, thats the way to go."
Ooh !! Are we into virtual sex, now ??
Complain about this comment
Daniellearwicker
It is a shame that I do not have the time to offer a more illuminating description of my position on this subject. Nothing is black and white and there are subtleties to each and every stance that make them unique. With this in mind I'll point out that your response above seems to use past failings of centrally planned economies as evidence that taxation in a mixed economy is inherently bad. Further, your final assertion that free market economies race ahead is also not borne out by the evidence. Currently, various systems including centrally planned economies are racing ahead.
So without going into enormous detail, I'll try to put things succinctly:
If we bail out the banks, then there is moral hazard that the bankers will abuse their position of being private entities with the implicit promise of state backing.
If we bail out the homeowners and business debtors then there is moral hazard that those who overspent will continue to overspend.
From the two choices where should the moral hazard be placed? It depends: did people get lent too much or did people borrow too much? Or at least it might seem that way at first glance.
The fact is though, in both cases the moral hazard and blame lies with the regulators, unless all those who call for deregulation are severely punished. Whether the debtors or creditors are rescued, the regulators need to be replaced and the regulations need to be enhanced so that the moral hazard is avoided. For example: if the debtor is rescued by debt write downs, access to credit should be carefully controlled in future to avoid further excesses.
Again, the moral hazard is really with the regulators, the arm of government. In an ideological climate of deregulation they let powerful financial elite dictate to them terms and conditions of the market. This moral hazard must be avoided by focusing attention on regulation and regulators, punishing those who call for deregulation, and recognising clearly that free market fundamentalism failed spectucularly.
Complain about this comment
#132 "....rather than searching for 'new economics' so that the UK government (Groan!) - can get some sort of fresh or new economic ideas, for their new rhetoric, so as to try and 'sell the next bribe'"
This is probably known henceforth as "The Harry Potter School of Economics" !! One wave of a magic wand and all woes are solved !!
If Our Glorious Leader can save the world, I'm sure he can save tiny old Britain as well !! All he needs is to find his magic wand and wave it !!
Complain about this comment
150, Excellent point well made.
Complain about this comment
#138 "I'm posting from FF because the site no longer functions in IE8. The posts are not visible."
You're *still* using IE ?? Eeeeuuw !! :-)
Firefox 3.1.x is quite good, actually !!
Complain about this comment
153 - I thought someone would pick me up on the word subsidy - some products are produced in the EU without support or aid.
You have to compare like with like - how much does housing cost in Africa?
and what of the European history of government - some people are very keen on individuals and companies amassing profit through being members of a society but once the profit is accumulated for some strange reason these individuals and companies all of a sudden are operating in a complete vacuum and therefore entitled to keep every penny they amass completely ignorant of how they fit into an overall social system. Someone has to maintain the stuctures, should we paying those people the same rate as those in the 'wealth generating' trades, or should we acknowledge that not all members of society can go into the same trade, but we do all live in the same society.
Extrapolate from the hard-nosed, 'I generated the wealth therefore I can keep it attitude' to country level and what do you get? So, you want one rule for our working class and another for foreign countries, don't you?
But that aside, a famous entrepreneur recently proudly reported on TV that he started his empire through deception, doesn't believe in fixed prices in shops, and believes that tax havens are 'just reward' for the efforts he's made.
So do we encourage this entrepreneurial magic to flourish? Fastest route to adopting the mentality of the developing world.
Europe has standards that were developed over millenia - but can we claim them for ourselves? no, of course not, we have to share the benefits with a global world of countries who continue with child labour and female exploitation. Give me one good reason why a tradesman in this country should give a jot about life elsewhere?
Complain about this comment
150 - yes, and in relation to the so-called 'need' for foreign doctors etc. - why do we need them? because it is cheaper to import the products of education systems elsewhere than to educate 20 pupils here to a sufficiently high standard that at least two of them will go on to study medicine. Perhaps if the doctor in the Baby P case had been more au fait with the mores and behaviours and attitudes of the culture she was working in, she would not have been fooled by chocolate smudges covering up bruises? And just to fend of counter-arguments, Ms Shoesmith was not on the frontline and those social workers who were on the frontline did not have the professional authority to take big decisions or overthrow the workings of a complex bureaucracy - but doctors do have considerable authority and they are on the frontline, that is why they get paid so much.
Complain about this comment
#146 "What kind of person wants to fly their prawns to Thailand to have some one peel them for them and then fly them back again? It has nothing to do with low cost labour - and everything to do with madness."
I think it's more to do with what I call the "Instant Coffee" generations. They want everything done for them and they want instant gratification !! Witness that the most popular kitchen equipment today is the microwave !! Instant meals, no messes, no need for horrible things like "cooking" !!
Complain about this comment
166 - yes, and what was the culture that taught delayed gratification? - oh yes, the one that has been purposefully and incrementally dismantled in the last decade or so!
Complain about this comment
164 cont. and another famous entrepreneur was recently shown on TV unable to open the back of a lorry - 'I'm no good at manual work' he said - no? well then be prepared to pay those who are a decent living because if you can't open your lorry then you can't make your profit on trading can you?
The truth is, the banking situation and the farming situation are both the victim of 'the supply chain' phenomenon - those at the end of the chain, interfacing with the consumer (the payer or 'wealth provider') are able, purely due to their position in the chain, to take a greater share of the price paid for the work of the entire chain. And that's what they do, because no-one says that they shouldn't.
Complain about this comment
#167 "166 - yes, and what was the culture that taught delayed gratification? - oh yes, the one that has been purposefully and incrementally dismantled in the last decade or so!"
"Delayed gratification" has been around for many thousands of years !! Just look into the Indian and Chinese cultures where parents sacrifice everything to "better" their offsprings !! Their "gratification" comes when their offsprings do better than they can !!
And the "dismantling" of "delayed gratification" started in the 60s by the "Flower Power" generation !! It was not done in the last decade or so. That was also the time that gave rise to the "Politically Correct" generations !!
What do we do to young criminals that run around sticking knives into other people ?? That's an extreme example of "instant gratification" !! When did all this start and when did it become common place ??
Complain about this comment
stephi
this might be of interest
A Sideways Look At ... Economic Models
Economic Models on the Psy-Fi Blog
http://www.psyfitec.com/2009/11/sideways-look-at-economic-models.html
Complain about this comment
169 Their "gratification" comes when their offsprings do better than they can !!
Deferred gratification or delayed gratification is the ability to wait in order to obtain something that one wants.
I invest in my children's future, for their sake i.e. to gratify them not myself.
As I said, for any sensible debate, like needs to be comapred with like. A debate is not taking a concept and applying it willy nilly in widely different contexts.
Complain about this comment
169 re. knife crime
simple - a nationwide programme to provide high quality facilities for competitive athletics. sadly, our 'wealth generators' are not interested in subsidising anything except their own back pockets.
Complain about this comment
As from early economic models they all appear to have the same constuction the majority of poor support the minority rich if this then continues to the point where moor of the rich slip into the order of the poor = A GLOBAL{ BUBBLE BURST ECONOMY AND FAMINE AND WAR}.A World of shared interest and cooperative peoples economy would bring more harmony to all the people of this World
Complain about this comment
#142 armagediontimes
"Why do you have to assume that the super wealthy obtained their wealth through providing value to others."
I didn't. I laid out the possibilities and said which of those I condone. Either they took the wealth by force, or it was handed over willingly. What alternatives between those two exist?
In order to take people's money by force, there are only two approaches - to apply your own force (like organised crime, doorstep money lenders etc.) or to get government force to act on your behalf (like the BBC, The Royal Opera, Rover, etc.). And to repeat myself completely - I don't condone either of those.
So the only approach I condone is getting money from people through a trade, where they decide to give you the money in return for something they want. I would certainly encourage you to look at a list of billionaires and see if you can figure out whether they used forced or people willingly gave them the money. Worldwide, you'll find it's a mixture.
"In Kenya (not in the bottom 2% of nations, and never a communist state) somewhere between 17% and 32% of the population have access to a TV."
Comparisons between Africa and nations in other continents are difficult because Africa frequently suffers droughts. Also most of its nations were created only a few decades ago by the withdrawal of European colonial governments, and remain stuck in a cycle of dictatorship/corruption/coups.
Kenya is no exception, as one of the most corrupt countries in the world. Perhaps the best that can be said of Kenya is that it is "not communist", but nevertheless it has been effectively a one-party state for long periods of its history. It isn't necessary for a government to describe itself as communist in order for it to form a power-hierarchy that intervenes directly and destructively in people's lives all the time - the average Kenyan has to pay a bribe to a government official approximately once every two days! As in most African countries, the richest people are generally the ones in government.
There are exceptions, where people find a way to get around the government. For example, there are only 300,000 land-line telephones in Kenya, most in government offices. Like all services solely controlled by the Kenyan government (Kenya Telekom), it's a half-finished joke, used more to control the ordinary people rather than free them. But in the last few years mobile phone use has exploded, and already over a third of adults carries one, and practically all populated areas have network coverage. Vodafone got into this market by partnering with Kenya Telekom, but there is also Zain, a wholly commercial pan-African telecom provider. As well as accelerating economic activity through faster communication, cellphones are even revolutionizing the use of money, as there is now away to make secure payments via SMS. This kind of progress is happening mostly despite the government, which continues to be a corrupt mess that ordinary Kenyans have to negotiate around.
Africa does have some very wealthy people - aside from corrupt government officials - and many of them are founders of telecoms businesses. If the result of their efforts is that Africa is put on the road to long term double-digit growth, which is a real possibility, then Africa will be getting a very good bargain out of the situation.
Of course, some African countries have been proudly Marxist for long periods. Ethiopia, well known as one of the poorest nations on Earth, was for many years a fine example of a communist country, with collectivised farming and regular bouts of starvation, dependent on money from the Soviet Union.
Many African leaders had the misfortune to be educated in Britain in the early 20th century, so they were indoctrinated with Fabian socialism. For example, Nyerere studied economics in Edinburgh, and later became ruler of Tanzania for several decades. He instituted collectivised agriculture, based on his romantic notion that "Africans have always been socialists", effectively halting economic development in the pre-industrial age, leaving the country permanently on the very brink of starvation, mortally vulnerable to the slightest bad weather. It turned out that what Africans (like the rest of the pre-industrial human race) had always been was not socialist, but feudalist. But then it can be very hard to tell the two apart in practise.
Then there are the problems caused by the governments on other continents. Europe and the US pay subsidies to our own farmers (provided by our tax payers), which keeps more farmers in business than we naturally need. This creates a problem: too much food here, and that would drive prices down and impoverish our own farmers. The solution? Dump the goods on the world market at low prices (or even for free). Just in case there was any doubt that we don't want to trade with Africa, we also impose import tariffs on African produce. All this is caused by government intervention (taxing/spending and tariffs) on behalf of political interests in Western countries. Africa suffers from being locked out of free trade.
So of Kenya's (and other African nation's) problems, which do you think are caused by poor or overbearing government, and lack of access to free trade, and which are caused by self-made billionaires operating in free markets?
"In Cameroon only 2% of the population have access to the internet."
I wouldn't be surprised if that was an OVER-estimate. Again, you're talking about a country in which 70% of the population still has to grow their own food. It's not an example of a capitalist economy - it's more like a feudal economy, with the same ruler for the last 28 years. Same story of massive corruption. And yet it also has in recent years seen an explosion in mobile phone usage, right under the government's nose, before they had time to get involved and introduce any regulation. Like many rural Africans, they may not have a PC to by DVDs from Amazon, but they increasingly have a computer in their pocket that they can use to text payments.
Somalia is an interesting case. Prior to 1991 it was ruled by... guess what... The Somali Revolutionary Socialist Party! Since then it has been riven by civil war, stoked by the intervention of neighbouring Ethiopia (a conflict dating back to when both nations were client states of the Soviet Union), and also arguments about Islamic law. It has this year managed to form a government for the first time in 18 years, but in the intervening period it existed in a state of near anarchy.
And yet - and this is the strange bit - according to the UN's Political Office for Somalia, it still had a stronger economy than many other African countries. It's hard to think of a more damning statement about the quality of government in some Africa countries - that they might conceivably be better off if the government just shut itself down. Somalia has five small airline businesses competing to carry freight. It has the fastest growth rate in internet usage in Africa, served by 22 ISPs. If you want broadband, in Somalia it takes 3 days to get a landline installed, while in Kenya there is a multi-year waiting list. Obviously with a responsible government Somalia would certainly be much better off, but it's also a demonstration of how a corrupt government is potentially worse than no government at all.
"In Afghanistan the UN estimates that UK/US policies will result in the deaths of upward of 300,000 Afghan children..."
What you're quoting there is the result of government policies. I quite agree that they are obscene. The whole Afghan war (and Iraq war) is a terrible waste of time, resources and human lives, probably motivated in part by corruption in the US and UK governments.
"Footballers do not make a lot of money by comparison to the wealth of the super rich. You only think they make a lot of money by comparing their income to yours. We are all hurt by this. Why should Usmanov be allowed to own shares in Arsenal?"
Usmanov's history of corrupt links with government stretch back into the later years of the Soviet Union. He's the son of a Soviet government official. He acquired all his wealth by cherry picking the remnants of the steel industry of the collapsing Soviet Union. He is part of the fall-out from the sorry history of Russia, which simply went from being ruled by one kind of Mafia (the Bolsheviks) to another.
However, if he now wants to lend some of his billions to a football club, why turn it down? It's apparently one of the few legitimate things he's ever done.
But for this, and all other cases you mention, there is a very simple way to protest against perceived injustice in football or F1 racing - which is to divert your own time and attention elsewhere. That's what I do.
"Maybe I´m out of touch but I don´t see too many people requesting to be bombed. Do you?"
No, I don't. But I don't see Tesco, or Walmart, or Microsoft, or David Beckham, or Kenyan telecoms entrepreneurs, bombing anyone. I see the UK and US governments doing it.
Your problem is not being out of touch. Your problem is your inability to distinguish between people becoming rich by giving value to others (which is what economic freedom based on limited government makes possible) versus powerful people who oppress others (which is what arbitrary government intervention makes possible).
Complain about this comment
146. At 11:39pm on 14 Nov 2009, armagediontimes wrote:
...... #143 glanafon. you doin it all wrong.
No risk has been removed - it has been transferred to the mass of the population. Removal of risk could have been accomplished by wiping out the "too big to fails" and a general debt jubilation. This has not happened and neither will it..........''
No I aint gov'. Risk was removed for the gambler. Last thing I want to do is give my money to a gambler who has no risk - as all is redeemed by me or my kin.
Complain about this comment
169 instant gratification is, in part, a by-product of political correctness. the 'me, me, me' attitude comes from people feeling insecure. people feel insecure because they are being told lies; they are being told the ground is solid beneath them, but they can feel it moving and they don't know when it will stop. why would you delay gratification if you don't know if your pension pot will be safe or will be raided? those who lost their pensions didn't do too well out of delayed gratification did they, for either themselves of their offsprings?
Complain about this comment
@FrankSz
"It is a shame that I do not have the time to offer a more illuminating description of my position on this subject."
The real shame is that you don't have time apparently to even read my last answer, let alone write another response!
To recap: you asked "Does it then matter what percentage is taken by the government?"
My response explains why it would matter. It's there for you to read, if you want to know.
Like most people on this thread (as encouraged by Stephanie herself) you seem to get muddled. One moment you're talking about deregulation and profiteering purely within the credit system, which I agree (see various places above) is a bad idea. Money and credit has to provide a stable basis for all other economic activity. No disagreement there.
But then the next moment you're suggesting that unlimited taxation by the government wouldn't be a problem! You're talking as if the credit crunch - a breakdown of regulation in the finance sector - provides a reason to reconsider and perhaps roll back free unregulated economic activity across the whole of the economy. It's that manoeuvre that I am largely objecting to throughout this whole thread (and the original article).
To accept central management of credit is NOT the same thing as having a mixed economy. After all, central banks have manipulated the base interest rate forever. A mixed economy is a completely different thing - widespread government intervention in prices, wages and investment across the whole economy. That would be a disastrous development - we already have some of that and would do well to get rid of it.
In short - just because our governments now accept the need for competent regulation of finance, we don't need to think of a new name for capitalism!
Complain about this comment
Re 153 ishkandar:
''...... No 117 " 116 not all agricultural products in the EU are subsidised, are they? I believe the local/organic movement is trying to get Fair Trade status for some EU products/struggling EU small-holders."
Not all subsidies are paid in cash to the individual farmers themselves. A tariff or import restriction is just as much a subsidy and applies nation/area-wide
Furthermore, Fairtrade is about getting *Internationally FAIR* prices for the producers. I seriously doubt that any local/organic farmer can afford to live on the prices paid to the African farmers, even through Fairtrade !! And social security is *ALSO* a form of subsidy !!........
You are entirely missing the point.
Local perishable produce should be consumed locally. End of story.
Not flown around the world using non renewables that are to all intents and purposes not taxed. In order to support local perishable production it has to be consumed locally. It cannot be consumed locally if it is not produced here because farmers are not able to financially operate.
We do not all want a chinese takeaway everyday.
I fail to see how the western consumer is supposed to have responsibility for the remote perishable produce market which should have nothing to do with them.
Strategically, remote from market production of persihable goods is a very poor choice as sooner or later the cost of transportation will kill it, as it has already done with cut flower production in some countries in Africa, then a big hole results in the local economy.
The fair trade production of stuff which cannot be produced here such as cocoa bean and coffee beans or rice etc, to name a few that fit the category, is an entirely different thing, and as I have said I buy Fair Trade.
You have a two hemispheres problem. It is one world. One problem.
Complain about this comment
159 ish
LARP is live not virtual. It is in growth. There are many forms of it, Roman, Fairy, Medieval, etc you need to keep up with the times.
Complain about this comment
165. wappaho
.... in relation to the so-called 'need' for foreign doctors etc. - why do we need them? because it is cheaper to import the products of education systems ....
This is true, however the behaviour of medical schools is part of the problem. As HMG like to see foreign students propping up Med Schls, and the Schools also like the income, the majority of places in med schools are given to overseas students, 2/3rds, 3/4 in some cases. Access to places is throttled for UK kids, severely. I dont see the funding or desire for UK kids to go and study overseas at overseas Med Schls. So it is another imbalance. It is like Microsoft Gates funding overseas students to go to Oxbridge. There are only a liminted number of places. Why do the government, and wealthy foreign nationals, feel that UK institutions are there for the world to have but our own UK children are squeezed out. Its rubbish.
The simple fact is UK born and UK educated and UK trained doctors find that they are attractive overseas. In some countries thay are paid better, have better working conditions, better lifestyle, have cheaper housing. A 30 year old qualified GP on above average salery cannot afford housing in the London area on their own salary. So they go. That is also rubbish, they should be encouraged to stay.
Complain about this comment
165 wappo
You are not correct.
Complain about this comment
#174 "I laid out the possibilities and said which of those I condone. Either they took the wealth by force, or it was handed over willingly. What alternatives between those two exist?"
They worked hard and intelligently for it !!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Buffett
Can't really say that it was all handed to him on a silver platter; nor did he rob anyone to get it !!
Complain about this comment
#179 "LARP is live not virtual. It is in growth. There are many forms of it, Roman, Fairy, Medieval, etc you need to keep up with the times."
Hey, I'm an old man !! The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak !! :-)
Complain about this comment
#178 "Not flown around the world using non renewables that are to all intents and purposes not taxed. In order to support local perishable production it has to be consumed locally. It cannot be consumed locally if it is not produced here because farmers are not able to financially operate."
To a large extent, I agree that perishables should be consumed locally where possible. However, there are things like fruits that cannot be grown locally because they are seasonal. Therefore, there will be a certain amount of long distance transportation.
*EVEN SO*, I disagree that those products *HAVE* to be *flown* everywhere. Technology is such that fruits can be transport in chilled containers by sea and that is far more cost effective and less polluting, especially when they are piggy-backed on the transportation of other products.
Complain about this comment
#173 "And yet - and this is the strange bit - according to the UN's Political Office for Somalia, it still had a stronger economy than many other African countries."
Perhaps they studied at the Edward Teach School of Economy !! :-)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/8357333.stm
Damned lucrative business, that. Low outlay; high profit margins !!
Complain about this comment
#174 danielearwicker. You claim that you do not "assume that the super wealthy obtained their wealth through providing value to others"
In post #136 you write "we have to assume the second method was used." A method which you have defined in the same post as meaning "they (the wealthy)were given it (the wealth) willingly by other people who wanted some kind of goods or services in return"
Maybe you can understand why you might appear both confused and confusing.
Complain about this comment
"Do we need a new name for the kind of economy we live in today? I ask because it's becoming a bit of an issue."
If we do, I thought of 'Melmottism' after the character in Trollope's 'The Way We Live Now'. Those who are not familiar with the novel may well recall the BBC's excellent dramatisation with David Suchet as Melmotte. Melmotte's project is selling stocks in a never to be built railway, a wonderful South Sea Bubble story of soaring share values and Madoff-like success.
I wonder, could there be a 150-year economic bubble cycle? The original (?) South Sea Bubble dates around 1720. Trollope's novel celebrates 'bubble economics' around 1870. In 2009, we may be experiencing the 3rd crest of 'bubblonomics'. And this, with govs busy printing money to lend to themselves and buying out the minor Melmottes and Madoffs, could be the finest version. But, how bad will it be in ten years time?
So, 'Melmottism' or 'Bubblonomics', manure by any other name smells just the same.
Complain about this comment
The economy would have to be tidied up a bit first, but why not call what we are aiming at "social democracy"?
Complain about this comment
" The False Economy "
Complain about this comment
There have always been regulators of private companies even in the most free markets.
We have not only bank regulation but regulation of water (OFFWAT), communications (OFFCOM) etc.
So I suggest the name should always have been REGULATED CAPITALISM.
Complain about this comment
Danielearwicker
You wrote :
"To recap: you asked "Does it then matter what percentage is taken by the government?"
My response explains why it would matter. It's there for you to read, if you want to know.
My question was aimed at getting you to think, though clearly without much success. I was not appealing to you for information, and your answer certainly doesn't demonstrate that you have any authority to offer answers to such questions.
You might find my tone a little hostile, but that's because I have come across your ilk before. "Libertarians" with underlying hatred of authority, projecting pubescent parental conflicts onto their perception of government, feeling legitimised by a community of likeminded angsty pseudo-intellectuals who indulge in a communal misinterpretation of Austrian economics to rail against 'government theft and interference in the market.'
My response was entirely pertinent to your post, and I read your response carefully. That you cannot join the dots is entirely your problem, and quite apparent I'm afraid.
Complain about this comment
Further:
"roll back free unregulated economic activity "
Red Herring. There is no free, unregulated economic activity.
Complain about this comment
192 Frank
I completely agree with this.... ''Red Herring. There is no free, unregulated economic activity.''
There you go, we have had red herring economics, that what got us here. Now we have a kippered economy, kippernomics.
There is no such beast as an unregulated market, except perhaps briefly under Mr Brown and Mr Bush and look where that led us. The corollary is that a free market cannot last very long can it, it burns up on re-entry to reality.
Complain about this comment
Is a pilchard a red herring? Or is it the tomato sauce in the can?
We have a pilchard economy as that will be all we can afford to eat. Pilchards on toast: shades of austerity and food rationing!
Late last week I had a phone call from our local Businesslink asking me to participate in a survey. I thought this would be a good distraction so allowed myself to be surveyed.
Most of the questions seemed to be based on a presumption that the economy was on its way out of recession and the context of the later questions was how ready were we as a business for growth. I did point out to the young man who rang me that this was a loaded questionaire which consequently lacked any integrity. However, I look forward to the statement that soon `companies are expecting growth' in the not too distant future.
More pilchards, methinks!
Complain about this comment
180. At 12:47pm on 15 Nov 2009, glanafon wrote:
165. wappaho
.... in relation to the so-called 'need' for foreign doctors etc. - why do we need them? because it is cheaper to import the products of education systems ....
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It is my understanding that most British born and trained newly qualified doctors are leaving the UK NHS and private employees in droves because of the new obstacles and working practices placed on them in their contracts of employment with jobs being offered in the most seemingly deliberately arkward places relative to their home addresses ... but...
mostly because there are at least several or even hundreds of overseas candidates in direct competition to them, for every UK vacancy
Is this was is known as British jobs for British workers and that UK immigration is not a problem (to whom?)?
Complain about this comment
#194
Solar powered aeroponically grown Habaneros. That's my diet for the next few years. Anyone who shakes my hand will have a painful half hour the next time they use the toilet.
Complain about this comment
The Hans Christian Anderson economy. Everything is based on a gambling casino called the stock market. Real money does not exist. Bankers are infallible and effectively manipulate the financial system so that only "ordinary" people are allowed to suffer losses of income or capital. Try to reverse the situation and the rest of us would be carted off as thieves or fraudsters. No one outside the financial fraternity could do a Fred Goodwin without risking 25 years in jail. Will no one join me in a revolution?
Complain about this comment
#193 Glanafon
There's something fishy about your reasoning.
Complain about this comment
To believe that there are no shades of grey between coercion and free will is incredibly naive; psychologically, it is a fallacy.
"Marketing Psychology BA (Hons)
This new and distinctive programme brings together, as a fully integrated degree course, two of the most popular and powerful university disciplines: Marketing and Psychology. The course facilitates new creative business skills of 'getting into the customer's mind' and will enable graduates to adapt and be successful in a changing business world."
A randomly selected job advert in telesales:
"You will possess excellent communication and rapport building skills balanced with the tenacity and drive to earn £35K+ p.a.
You will be of graduate calibre, personable, credible and possess strong negotiation skills. A personal interest in IT and IT products will be a definite advantage though previous IT sales experience is not required.
Whilst you will be expected to make 50 plus calls a day you are targeted on ‘quality rather than quantity' and the calls are not scripted in any way. You will have a relaxed approach that can establish rapport, ‘fact find' and naturally build relationships to the next stage through following a proven business development process."
Complain about this comment
#196 "Solar powered aeroponically grown Habaneros. That's my diet for the next few years. Anyone who shakes my hand will have a painful half hour the next time they use the toilet."
Burns at both ends, does it ?? :-)
A bit like the current economy, then !! It's hell to get the income in to start with and when you get it in, the government tax the hell out of it !!
Complain about this comment
#198 "There's something fishy about your reasoning."
(groan !!)
Complain about this comment
199 in other words - doing a degree these days is not about theory or inquiry but about learning how to extract money from 'customers'. Why do you think mandelhson wants to play down qualifications and get lecturers to assess other attributes? - it's not about access to university, it is about elevating personality and communication skills over intellect. what you might call the 'Strictly Syndrome' - it's not what the men who have spent a lifetime choreographing think that matters, it's Entertainment! - but it is nevertheless masquerading as a skills-based competition.
When you boil it down, the real wealth generator is deception - I've worked in banks that get money by not informing customers of their real options vis interest rates, under the pretext that, 'we're not financial advisers so we couldn't do that' - big difference between financial advice and honest information about available options.
Complain about this comment
#199 "Marketing Psychology BA (Hons)
This new and distinctive programme brings together, as a fully integrated degree course, two of the most popular and powerful university disciplines: Marketing and Psychology. The course facilitates new creative business skills of 'getting into the customer's mind' and will enable graduates to adapt and be successful in a changing business world."
Is this where kiddies are sold a pig-in-a-poke to keep them out of the unemployment statistics long enough to get to the next election ??
Marketing is where the "impecunious" are brainwashed by the "unspeakable" to purchase the "unnecessary" using "indefinite" credit !! Therein, lies the ills of our current economy !!
Complain about this comment
203 just imagine if they ran degrees in 'Informed Consumption' - 'How to get into the minds of people trying to sell you stuff that you don't need'
- even making sure that 16 yr olds come out of school understanding the difference between APR, GPA and EAR would give us a flying fish start in Las Vegas Globas.
Complain about this comment
The whole idea of a free market is a total nonsense.
It is a guise under which deregulation is pushed. It is not a policy, but an anti-policy. It is a method used to render governments ineffective. It is a way of appearing legitimate and sincere when they call for anarchy and for regulation to fail. It is the propaganda that makes the average person see the word DEregulation as a good thing. The idea that tax is theft, while Nordic countries thrive and prosper, while we can all at least have the comfort of basic healthcare, education, roads and rail, is advanced by extremists who either enjoy or are utterly ignorant of social inequality and crime.
Evertything is a balance. Human social structures are and always have been hierarchical. Most systems tend to central control, even if out of sheer gravity (the preference for proximity and reduced communication costs).
We have had 'deregulation', 'freedom' and 'democracy' rammed down our throats for the last three decades at least. It has been and is a failure. It's time to set these ideas aside and understand that we all really want is GOOD management, GOOD leadership and GOOD regulation.
Complain about this comment
Ishkandar
Are you any good at asp.net and C#?
Complain about this comment
#175 glanafon. You are only correct if have accurately identified the "gambler" in your scenario.
Consider that the banks advanced entire swathes of loans on the explicit assumption that they would never get paid back. Is this gambling? If I take a pile of cash and set fire to it am I gambling? or am I merely destroying money?
Their assumption that they would not be repaid explains the flight to ever more complex derivatives, a lot of which were designed as mere hedges against defaults.
They (the banks) knew that such a virtual structure would collapse immediately there was any system shock. They also model system shocks. This explains why they spent time, money and effort to capture governments. More obvious in the US - but clearly recognisable in the UK.
Government instantly obeyed their masters and acted to transfer all losses to the population. Where is the gamble in any of this?
The population were the gamblers, ignoring the development of companies with balance sheets larger than national economies and ignoring the capture of government by oligarchs and ignoring the destruction of all forms of democratic or self help institutions (ranging from formal elected representatives, through to unions, the Church and pubs). Their gamble was that they could ignore all of this and suffer no adverse consequences.
Now the people sit idly around and choose to ignore the evidence before their eyes of the largest sequestration and transfer of wealth in history. This time they are gambling that it will all work out OK in the end. it won´t.
As things get worse (and they will) expect the long (or short) march to war. US planners plan to win a first strike nuclear attack - and the population sits idly by assuming with no evidence that it is either not true or will not come to pass. It is and it will.
The people are the most reckless gamblers in this scenario - and they are literally betting their lives on the outcome of a game that they do not, and will not, understand.
I know that you are uncommonly fond of quotes so try this one: "All the power is in the hands of people rich enough to buy it, while we walk the streets to chicken to even try it" - Joe Strummer.
Complain about this comment
"coercion and free will "
Yes.
People follow the same old paths. From brightly coloured teenagers who signal loudly, each claiming to be unique and yet looking so similar, to herds of suited office workers making their way in daily rhythmic pulses too and from the workplace. Women who spend their time and money on makeup, clothing, magazines and hair - do they really know they are in a competitve signalling game driven by the underlying instinct to mate? Do we really sign up in our millions and billions for lifetimes of child rearing and mortgage payments voluntarily? Are we insane?
The "free market" hinges on the concept of "free will" and subjectivity. This is a nonsense. We should know from observation of people younger than ourselves that we, just like them, do not really know why we do things. We are not qualified to explain our individual behaviour, so what gives us the right to think we have free will or that we even participate in a "free market". It is childish nonsese, a dream sold to the gullible and the greedy.
Complain about this comment
#204 "- even making sure that 16 yr olds come out of school understanding the difference between APR, GPA and EAR would give us a flying fish start in Las Vegas Globas."
Strange you should mention this. We were taught how to work out APRs in "O" levels Maths; when there were such things as "O" levels !! It's not rocket science !!
"just imagine if they ran degrees in 'Informed Consumption' - 'How to get into the minds of people trying to sell you stuff that you don't need'"
Naw !! Just a good dose of home-instilled common sense will do !!
Complain about this comment
SECULARISM
No need for a new name. Sow what you reap. Failure on a massive scale is what you get if you are led (or controlled) by the Godless.
Capitalism, democracy, securalism are all branches of the man made philosophy that will no doubt be eventually consigned to the dustbin of history like all the previous man made isms - socialism, communism, feminism, marxism, liberalism etc.
God forbade usuary in all the major religions for a reason. It causes poverty. It leads to systematic transfer of wealth from the masses to the few. It is inflation. It destroys individual wealth. It leads to high taxes. It is unfair. It destroys ecomomies. It destroys nations. It destroys lives.
We had been warned. We took no heed.
The governments of old gave the bankers them a licence to print money so that they could finance their wars. The bankers printed money out of thin air and called it the fractional reserve banking system. More like fictional banking system. Its called counterfeiting if done without the licence to print! They get to charge interest on money they had just created! No risks for the banker.
They abused their priviledge. They printed money to excess. The inevitable crunch happened. The system was insolvent. Our deposits had disappeared. We get to bail them out. No risks for the banker even in failure. Unfair? I think so
End usuary and all will be well.
Complain about this comment
#210
"socialism, communism, feminism, marxism, liberalism "
I think you forgot Roman Catholicism, Protestantism, Zoroastranism and quite a few others. You also make a false distinction between 'man-made isms' and 'god-made isms', as 'god' is man-made.
Ending "usuary" is like ending "crime". A nice idea, but any practical suggestions on how to achieve it?
Complain about this comment
208 the free market also hinges on perfect information. our market hinges on secrecy and obfuscation - even if you can get all the details you need about a product, not only are there too many products to compare but also, in many 'high value' sectors now, the purchase is basically a one-off deal negotiated by people paid to sell at the lowest price necessary to gain, or retain, the customer.
Complain about this comment
206,
asp.net, c# = poorly attempted copy of the worlds ONLY true OOPL.
Complain about this comment
I see that the BofE latest report suggests a prompt U-turn in the graphs and 4% growth within a year or so!
Yer havin' a laff, mate.
Even if they gave us loans at base +0, we wouldn't get growth in the private sector just now. No listed company has the manouevrability to invest in anything but reducing their debts. (They can't even do anything about their pension obligations)
Complain about this comment
Just read the first few posts. Haven't got time to read them all. But for a new name how about just plain and simple
GREED
Money has become the evil. Not having a particular pop at the BBC here but as an example it gets 3.5 billion pounds. And still says it hasn't got enough. ???? Wages (some) are just plain ridiculous. Local government cry they must pay ridiculous salaries to attract the best. Banks - well. Some here are obviously far more equiped with the financial knowledge but it seems to me because ,money no longer has any intrinsic value society is the victim.
We must sever the links with the paper money economy. Let them gamble as they like but if they fail they suffer not society. And some how pay them with valueless paper if it all comes crashing. Note pay them with money from the real economy. Something like luncheon vouchers. Or just hang them
Complain about this comment
#206 "Are you any good at asp.net and C#?"
Sorry, not a hope !! The last language I had anything to do with was C++, and even there, it wasn't much. Mostly I was in C before switching to databases and systems and business analysis !!
Complain about this comment
'God- is man made' Thats a question of faith which neither side will be able to scientifically prove in this life. Point is: God has been spot on on this one. Best economic forecaster of them all. Further more God's currencies- gold and silver -have held their value over the centuries whilst the man made fiat currencies are doomed.
'any practical suggestions on how to achieve it?'
How about passing a law? That how its normally done.
Look the whole system is insolvent. Nat West, RBS, Lloyds are broke and on life support. Only thing keeping them in business are the bailouts and 'our faith' (how ironic) in the banking system. Our perseverence partly due to lack of alternatives although I note that 'non interest' banks around the world are doing quiet well.
Its time for a fresh start. New banks & a fairer financial system. Its not fair that a persons salary is eroded due to debasement of his local currency. Its just another tax on his wealth. QE will be devastating for the UK in the long run. We have to have desciplined when it comes to the money supply (euphamism for printing money out of thin air). The status quo banker will have to be taken kicking and screaming. But we know the current system has failed us badly. Just count the £$trillions it has cost mankind globally to keep it afloat. Unfortunately our politicians are no longer reformers, free thinkers or visionaries.
I dont expect them come round to this way of thinking until it is much too late.
Complain about this comment
#213
That may very well be. :-) But we are looking for .NET people and actually hiring. Amazing isn't it? :-)
Complain about this comment
One thing we have to be careful of is that we don't end up with the worst parts of a Socialist Planned Economy and a Capitalist Economy.
We have little manufacturing left in the UK and hence can't take advantage of the recent devaluation. Food prices are rising. Planning permission for any sort of power station is a nightmare, ditto airports. The Europe hating press won't permit us to join the Euro.
There is one word to describe the British Economy. SAD.
Complain about this comment
#213 "asp.net, c# = poorly attempted copy of the worlds ONLY true OOPL."
OO is a great theory but perfect implementation is still a tad into the future. And a perfect OODB is even further still !!
Complain about this comment
#218 "That may very well be. :-) But we are looking for .NET people and actually hiring. Amazing isn't it? :-)"
Well, they are rather thin on the ground, these days. Or at least the ones who are any use at all !! Not the "Microsoft Certified" ones who merely went on a course and think they know everything there is to know !!
I had a hard time getting decent guys, too; so it not quite that "amazing" !! :-)
Unfortunately the good ones are already hog-tied and chained to their desks with "Golden Handcuffs" and the rest are mainly trainees or the discards. We had to start "home-growing" a few trainees and that takes time, effort and money and there's no security that the moment they are good enough, they'll not jump ship !!
University degrees ?? Hah !!
Complain about this comment
What a bunch of OLD WOMEN!
The lights come on when we press the switch,
there is food in the shops, the sun rises in
the morning and buses arrive when we wait for
them! When did you last hear of anybody dying
of Polio!
By any historical or geographical standard we
are wealthy beyond humanity's wildest dreams!
OK there's a blip in public finances, - but
in the context of the near-deflation Chinese
manufacturers (and others) have kindly exported
to us (at their expense!) this is small potatoes
indeed.
The projections I have seen look like 2% growth
next year and 4% 2011, - a few more of us should
really begin to count our blessings!
ML
Complain about this comment
ML
"The lights come on when we press the switch,
there is food in the shops, the sun rises in
the morning and buses arrive when we wait for
them! When did you last hear of anybody dying
of Polio!
By any historical or geographical standard we
are wealthy beyond humanity's wildest dreams!
"
Nonsense.
For a hell of a lot of people, and an increasing number of them, the lights only come on when the button is pressed because of state support.
For a good chunk of Europe last year the heat was not on while Russia held on to gas going through Ukraine.
Polio has been substituted for HIV and diabetes.
If you think functioning public transport, electricity and healthcare (mostly state infrastructure) is the pinnacle of human achievement you're living at least a century in the past.
Hope you have a warm winter.
Complain about this comment
222 What a bunch of OLD WOMEN!...a few more of us should
really begin to count our blessings!
and become transexuals?
Complain about this comment
AAAss-upwards.
Complain about this comment
LeaderOfTheRev
Passing a law never did anything to stop crime did it? Enforcement of the law sometimes acts as a deterrent, but it still doesn't get rid of crime.
The point is that if you try to prevent debt by driving it underground, it will go into the hands of the criminals, and soon the criminals will be in power (again).
A smarter way of getting rid of the debt, and getting rid of 'debt', needs to be found.
Is it actually debt per se that is the problem? As far as I am aware, debt-funded speculation is the problem. Borrowing to gamble.
If the creditor ENSURES that the debtor does not spend the money on something that is not worthy, does not spend it on anything else but something productive, that contributes to some measure of productivity, is that not also moral? If the creditor and debtor negotiate a rate of repayment (with interest) that preserves the productivity and prosperity of the new venture, is anything wrong with that?
If you agree with the above, then we can agree that the creditors must be MADE TO ENSURE such things in the future, with apt regulation.
Complain about this comment
211. At 6:38pm on 15 Nov 2009, FrankSz wrote:
#210
"socialism, communism, feminism, marxism, liberalism "
I think you forgot Roman Catholicism, Protestantism, Zoroastranism and quite a few others. You also make a false distinction between 'man-made isms' and 'god-made isms', as 'god' is man-made.
Ending "usuary" is like ending "crime". A nice idea, but any practical suggestions on how to achieve it?
-------
Regulate?
Complain about this comment
217. At 7:31pm on 15 Nov 2009, LeaderOfTheRevolution wrote:
'God- is man made' Thats a question of faith which neither side will be able to scientifically prove in this life. Point is: God has been spot on on this one. Best economic forecaster of them all. Further more God's currencies- gold and silver -have held their value over the centuries whilst the man made fiat currencies are doomed.
'any practical suggestions on how to achieve it?'
How about passing a law? That how its normally done.
Look the whole system is insolvent. Nat West, RBS, Lloyds are broke and on life support. Only thing keeping them in business are the bailouts and 'our faith' (how ironic) in the banking system.
=======
Very good, I like that
Complain about this comment
221. At 7:54pm on 15 Nov 2009, ishkandar wrote:
#218 "That may very well be. :-) But we are looking for .NET people and actually hiring. Amazing isn't it? :-)"
Well, they are rather thin on the ground, these days. Or at least the ones who are any use at all !! Not the "Microsoft Certified" ones who merely went on a course and think they know everything there is to know !!
I had a hard time getting decent guys, too; so it not quite that "amazing" !! :-)
Unfortunately the good ones are already hog-tied and chained to their desks with "Golden Handcuffs" and the rest are mainly trainees or the discards. We had to start "home-growing" a few trainees and that takes time, effort and money and there's no security that the moment they are good enough, they'll not jump ship !!
University degrees ?? Hah !!
====================
I'm curious, what do you think makes a 'good' .NET C# developer? and what is wrong with a trainee, surely everyone has to learn sometime?
Complain about this comment
193. At 3:57pm on 15 Nov 2009, glanafon wrote:
192 Frank
I completely agree with this.... ''Red Herring. There is no free, unregulated economic activity.''
There you go, we have had red herring economics, that what got us here. Now we have a kippered economy, kippernomics.
There is no such beast as an unregulated market, except perhaps briefly under Mr Brown and Mr Bush and look where that led us. The corollary is that a free market cannot last very long can it, it burns up on re-entry to reality.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Hence $moked filletted [yom yom]kippernomics$.
No good railing AAAgainst the sleepers has caused the grAAAvy train OCCIDENTAL EXPRESS on its way to pAAAllookahville[TO MEET THE TOOTH FERRY with a big consignment of Molliars] to come off the trAAAcks AND MISS THE SLOW BOAT TO bone CHINA .
Complain about this comment
#217 and #228
Money has an advantage over gold and silver, you can burn paper money to keep yourself warm. Gold is heavy to carry around, you cant eat it, you cant burn it and you cant make a shelter out of it.
let them hoard as much gold as they can eat, it is of no concern.
Gods currency must surely be outside of the ralms of money (Fiat or otherwise) or gold or silver.
if you want to quote gods currency try food, warmth, shelter, good company and good health.
Complain about this comment
maybe we should embrace the roller coaster ride that is unregulated globalised capitalism, and like roller coasters get some sponsorship in....
how about the Pepsi Maxonomy? with a foot note borrowed from oblivion at Alton towers 'Don't look down'
Complain about this comment
231 Jericoa "Gold is heavy to carry around"
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
1 POUND OF GOLD IS WORTH APPROX £10,000 ,i could endure that sort of burdon
But modern bankers might prefer a pound of flesh in their back pockets from time to time , on account of it being nearer their centre gravity AAA's hole where the curvature of space and time presents unparralelled oppurtunities for humbuggers to explore eachothers event horizons with or without a tuning fork.
Complain about this comment
It's still Capitalism, stupid!
Complain about this comment
218, to Java masters .NET is a breeze :-)
Complain about this comment
220,
'OO is a great theory but perfect implementation is still a tad into the future.'
Given that you were and still are a procedural programmer (c, c++ the sql server), your statement comes as no surprise. I can you tell you for sure, it's not a theory and that in practise (if implemented correctly) – the future is here now.
p.s c++ is NOT a true oo language, the deadly diamond anyone?
Complain about this comment
Now back to the ecomony, money, bankers and the whole truth. Anyone seen escape from new york? That's where we are headed.
Complain about this comment
#235
At least it would be, if Java-ists didn't aspire to understanding LINQ. :-)
Complain about this comment
Remember boys from the black stuff, well how about: Giz a job ism
Complain about this comment
The name, for a whole area of "science" that is in disarray and has been totally dis-credited?
Econoquackism or
in the world of Fractional Reserve Banking: Econoponzischemism
The ultimate issue must be about whether the world needs the USA to be the world's ultimate "economy" and if so for how much longer? Most people, inparticular the Americans themselves, do not think their economy can fail. I wonder if most Americans have heard of Zimbabwe or if they are even aware of what happened, (and is happening) there? But they have heard of Vietnam and what happened there. Obviously the circumstances are totally different. But for a while Vietnam became something of a pariah for the west and it's currency became virtually worthless as a result.
If the Fed is going down, it WILL want to take everyone with it. If you were on the other end of one of the proverbial supporting ropes what would you try and do?
Complain about this comment
No.185 from ishkandar
"Perhaps they studied at the Edward Teach School of Economy !! :-)"
Speaking of Blackbeard, I haven't noticed any contributions from Somali Pirate for a while. I hope he has not been caught and either sent to Executioner's Dock or Davy Jones Locker.
Complain about this comment
As our Government is spending all of its money (and a lot of money it doesn't have) on protecting employees in the 'City' (a self contained state which is our responsibility to finance which is based in England's capital city of London) then I would suggest that CAPITALISM is a very appropriate name.
Unfortunately it is also the focus of most BBC reporters too.
Complain about this comment
The problem with coders is that they confuse the means with the ends.
Same as with a new name for a new economy. Doesn't matter what you call it, the end result is still the same.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
237 Javaman - spot on for urbanites. For the rural communities I think Mad Max 3.
Complain about this comment
A faithful disciple of Discworld suspects that this isn't an economy: it's the Stance of the Coyote:
fisheries extinct
public transport a joke
agriculture on its knees
shipping and industry vanished overseas
bankers looting our savings instead of curating them
and heaven knows who owns the water we drink.
Complain about this comment
44. At 5:18pm on 13 Nov 2009, truths33k3r wrote:
"This does not refute my point that you can have a free market that is not perfect. Someone can believe that they are getting more or the same as they giving up, but this may not actually be the case."
...and there-in lies the problem - the contradiction of free market Economics.
The problem is the buyer's belief you refer to (which may be mis-guided as you say) can and is manipulated by the seller, who is ultimately always in the more powerful position (knowing the cost of the product already) - all the buyer can do is research the price to the best of his ability - which as we know can never be perfect.
This is how cartel's work, and why they occur naturally in free markets - and guess what you need to get rid of a cartel?
.....that's right, you need regulation - and what is a free market?
....right again, one without regulation.
Therefore the free market can never be truly free unless all participants have total freedom of information. It's a self defeating argument.
If you want a good example - see housing and estate agents. Their 'job' is to convince the buyer they need to purchase the house, and that the house is valued accurately - regardless of whether it is or not.
The 'light regulation' in this market is the reason for it being so 'bubble-tastic'. Estate agents distort the truth to get the sale and the commission - and that's why people often overpay for property.
More regulation will solve it - but as soon as you do that it moves further and further from a free market.
The only thing free about free markets is that when you manipulate your position with the buyer (as a seller) to mis-inform him then you will get a free ride.
....and that folks is how CDO's worked. The buyer thought they were getting top AAA rated instrument - the first seller knew otherwise (because those buyers who sold on might have been unaware).
As a result the first buyer got a free ride - on the profit made from the mis-information - and when the information is released - it all falls down.
Free market = Illogical.
Perfect markets are the only truly functioning free market (or at least destined to stay that way).
Most markets start out as 'free' but after the events I have depicted above they all need regulating in the end as the tendency is always to manipulate the market in your favour and gain a more powerful position - i.e. competition.
You really need to stop believing everything you learned at school and start to question it.
Otherwise you will continue to desire something which is not achieveable.
Complain about this comment
Free market capitalism is only anothe name for Laissez Faire, which was dumped 100 years ago and is now, quite rightly to be dumped again and for the same reason, that it gives succour and encouragement to bully boys and egocentrics. Maybe we now have Alzheimer's Economics, as we seem quite unable to remember all the lessons we should have learned last time around.
Complain about this comment
'Dual Indeptedism' has replaced Capitalism. Private and Public Sector Indeptedness now drives the Economy and Economic Decisions both domestic and corporate.
Practically every person that walks through a shopping precinct feels worse off financially and emotionally than the beggars and street hawkers begging for a few pounds more.
Future Tax and Interest rate rises will further erode the financial state of huge numbers of domestic households leading to widespread trauma and unrest.
Instead of printing money and giving it to banks, inappropriate personal loans and personal debt should be written off to restart the economy and recover the morale of the country.
Corporate casualties in the banking and financial sector are collateral damage. Inevitably smaller and less greedy businesses will rise from the ashes.
The Government should look after the interests of the people it serves ahead of any Business.
Complain about this comment
Writings you are wrong. Sellers do not always have the upper hand - what about a second hand car dealer paying a granny far less for her car than she might have got on ebay? I wonder whether you work in the private sector at all. As for CDOs this is an example of fraud, which happens in all market free or not. Perfect markets are not the same as free markets and if you reply saying that they are I won't bother debating it any more.
Complain about this comment
I'd go with a term starting with Speculation:
Speculatism was suggested (up there somewhere)
Specanomics isn't bad.
Speculatic Economics is a bit of a mouthful to swallow....
Complain about this comment
#229 "I'm curious, what do you think makes a 'good' .NET C# developer? and what is wrong with a trainee, surely everyone has to learn sometime?"
Certainly, there's nothing wrong with being a trainee !! I also wrote, in case you missed it, - "We had to start "home-growing" a few trainees and that takes time, effort and money and there's no security that the moment they are good enough, they'll not jump ship !!"
The trouble starts when they are sufficient trained and they jump ship !! The government will whinge and moan about finding jobs for young people but they do little or nothing to encourage SME companies to train them, e.g. apprenticeship subsidies !!
It cost a company a significant sum to train each trainee but will they ever get that back in useful work from them ?? Or will they disappear to the first company that offers them a few quid more the moment they are trained ??
Complain about this comment
#236 "p.s c++ is NOT a true oo language, the deadly diamond anyone? "
I agree. However, it was the precursor to all the "new" languages used in OO !! According to Bjarne Stroustrup, the guy who invented it, C++ is "C with classes" !!
Complain about this comment
#241 "Speaking of Blackbeard, I haven't noticed any contributions from Somali Pirate for a while. I hope he has not been caught and either sent to Executioner's Dock or Davy Jones Locker."
I hope not !! He's a good chap, for a Canuckistani !! :-)
Complain about this comment
#248 He, who does not learn from history, is doomed to repeat its mistakes !!
Complain about this comment
The new economics is a 'boligarchy' - as in "Pass the boli - they've just bailed us out with another billion."
Complain about this comment
I am not convinced that capitalism has changed. Could it be that we have?
Never mind.
Topically since ISIHAC is on the radio as I type, I reckon that the system we suffer under is that of general acclamation. Exactly as performed in Mornington Crescent. Same rules, inbuilt regulations and safeguards.
So general acclamation it is.
Complain about this comment
Dumbozonomics, it explains the elephant in the room that thinks its OK to be upwardly mobile and fly by the seat of its pants
Complain about this comment
252. At 5:28pm on 16 Nov 2009, ishkandar wrote:
#229 "I'm curious, what do you think makes a 'good' .NET C# developer? and what is wrong with a trainee, surely everyone has to learn sometime?"
Certainly, there's nothing wrong with being a trainee !! I also wrote, in case you missed it, - "We had to start "home-growing" a few trainees and that takes time, effort and money and there's no security that the moment they are good enough, they'll not jump ship !!"
The trouble starts when they are sufficient trained and they jump ship !! The government will whinge and moan about finding jobs for young people but they do little or nothing to encourage SME companies to train them, e.g. apprenticeship subsidies !!
It cost a company a significant sum to train each trainee but will they ever get that back in useful work from them ?? Or will they disappear to the first company that offers them a few quid more the moment they are trained ??
-------------
I won't disagree with that, although surely there could be some contract in place saying if we train you, you must stay for 6 months or pay us so much? Also you don't say what makes a good .NET developer. Is it simply mastering the large Class hierarchies,namespaces etc, and is previous experience of classic ASP Classic VB5/6 and all round development life cycle not considered relevent? (I must admit that the stack trace fascinates me, I've yet to see how they are an improvement over old style errors which generally told me the line and fault!)
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS