Discuss this article

To participate in the discussion Sign in or Register

dazza 24/02/09 12:31PM

Yes, but after 30 years of Let ‘er Rip! Free Market Capitalism, or the nearest thing to absolutely ‘pure’ that they could get and remain human, who is there in the Universities, the Media, the Bureaucracies, the pollies who has the faintest idea of an alternative to Capitalism.
May even be hard to find any of the old books on alternatives. Been a lot of ‘book burning’ in those 30 years.
Thinking of alternatives has NOT been encouraged, Big Business and Big Government in thrall to those Big Business Moguls has seen to that. Bit like some of the world Fundamentalist Religions, Islam, Christianity, Zionism. Adherents are most definitely NOT encouraged to think outside the prescribed box. in fact, you could say the opposite.
I see all these Governments as being strongly tied to the tail of a very nasty Tiger, and as it whips and snarls, they hang on grimly, throwing money around in a probably vain attempt to calm this Tiger. If whole societies (“There is no such thing as a Society, only individual greed.” M.Thatcher) have been nurtured from childhood as a voracious consumer, always buying, buying, buying, with our whole media tied to pushing consumerism, Governments depending on it, what are they to do? None of them have learned that this just can not continue in a sustainable fashion, that our world, our one and only world, is failing fast as a result of our voracious paritisation. They are still in total denial mode. Rudd and Co. are paying lip service only, as are most, if not all, of the world Governments. We are living in hope of Obama, but I am afraid he will badly disappoint. We have eaten and spoiled it, to the point that it is now at a point of total collapse. But do you see people like Rudd, Wong, Turnbull speaking out and saying, let us stop consuming, let us save our world? No. How can they, even if they wanted to, they are tied to the tail of the Tiger by Universal Greed!
This economic disaster could be made into ecological survival mode, with a little bit of effort, and a lot of guts on the part of pollies. It would be a massive change in thinking and acting and living. But the technology is there, the science is there, the means is there, the way to do it is known, but please, can anyone find me a pollie with GUTZ and intelligence! Dazza.

denko 24/02/09 12:31PM

Dear Alex

Media’s “bottom-feeders are the economics writers.”

In so-called normal times, these erudite commentators wrote very little and not very often.

hmmmm… if the econofogs are the media’s bottom-feeders, what were the media’s game-fish? (If a fishing metaphor holds¿)

What were or are the marlin, swordfish and wahoo ever reporting on?

… anything of relevance? Anthropomorphic CO2 levels on Titan perhaps?

This would help gauge the context of you derision
 :o) dunno4sure¿

dazza 24/02/09 12:46PM

In my comments on finding a decent pollie, I mean from the slather of Economic Rationalist Conservative Governments that control every medium to major economy in the world. I do not include in this Greens pollies, who have the ideas and the will, but not the full public support required to take the necessary action. Dazza.

denko 24/02/09 12:49PM

dear dazza

Given what you have said - what would step one be for the pollies(?) given they have i) the technology ii) the science iii) & the means is(sic) there.

err … could you give an example of i) the technology ii) the science iii) & the means that would so redeem the economics of the world?

dunno4sure¿
 ––––––––––––––––—‘

pollies(¿) huhh¿ Affectionate term, euphemism or fractured spell checker?

“Ughh..” [scutches me hackles ] ** shivers **

Oy vey!

GraemeF 24/02/09 1:13PM

The obsession with growth to keep running the economy has to stop. The collapse has shown that the ‘free market’ economy is part cancer and part Ponzi.

Ringo 24/02/09 1:21PM

Denko, do you ever get the feeling no one knows what you’re talking about?

Try constructing a sentence without playing with words (or yourself…haha, ffs)

Good piece, sooner we realise we’re going over the edge the better. Start stockpiling.

quillian 24/02/09 1:35PM

True Alex and true, Dazza.

Those “masters of the universe” who screwed up, those “pundits” who write but are not accountable for their fatuous economics and real-estate nonsense and so many pollies are but children; either too young to have expereinced the pre Reagan-Thatcher world and unaware we once lived in a “socialist” society (ooh that bogeyword!) OR short-memory soundbite bound forgetting even recent recessions and property busts.

That, of course, is what they all rely on; that we will forget what they said and promised and what happened only yesterday.

It is they who blew hot air into the balloon for 3,4 even 5 years after the cycle should have turned. They who postponed a manageble boom and bust only to create the mega, unimaginable bust we face now.

A bust that those who are informed, prescient and honest now admit is already showing signs of - and will inevitably become - the biggest depression ever, dwarfing the 29-30’s deporessions.

An yes, right again; all that “swaddled Lucky Country” guff adeptly summarised by Alex. Oh yes, we are better regulated and protected and insulated by the mineral/commodity boom - ha ha.

NO. it is coming. We have hardly yet begun to suffer and the vast majority out there in Australia and NZ haven’t even felt the first zephyrs raise the hairs on the back of their necks.

We shall all suffer. As a self-funded retiree I see independent retirement melting away day by day; currencies down, interest down, super done. We who “did the right thing” are already suffering wosrt while governements dole our our tax to those who never paid taxes.

But I do see a potential “silver lining”. The greatest challenge we face is to keep an inhabitable planet and it may be that the mother-of-all- economic- downturns will do more to cut emissions than all the greenhouse alleviation plans running at once.

Perhaps Gaia is, after all, a self-regulating entity and, just somehow, is using the very economic system so dear to us to reduce the impact of the planet’s worst virus - humanity.

As yes again - and lastly - we do need to stop consuming shiploads of rubbish that is not going to make up for our psychological and societal inadequacies. We need also to stop producing ad lib that least-threatened and most over-abundant species - our own kind. Quillian

denko 24/02/09 1:40PM

Ringo¿ dunno4sure¿

mbolan 24/02/09 1:42PM

Both Obama and Rudd are basically saying ‘we can spend our way out of this crisis’.

Since both have to borrow from the future to spend now, surely this is equivalent to saying ‘the more debt we incur, the better off we’ll be’.

I for one can no longer believe the authorities or the economic pundits.

davidg 24/02/09 1:59PM

Alex, if the items you’ve put in quotes are, indeed, quotes from economics writers, please attribute them. It would make your thesis much stronger. If they’re not, and you’re just making them up or paraphrasing things you’ve remembered…well, I’m afraid that’s just talk.

I don’t disagree with you (and, in fact, would tar most of the finance industry with a similar brush). But I like my arguments solid.

I do disagree with the term “free market” being used to describe the “system” we’ve had. Most of the “freedom” was illusory. Certain market players (notably the banks) had access and power that was simply unavailable to most of us. This was ruthlessly and relentlessly exploited for their own advantage (why has the Oz dollar has lost 1/3 of its value against the USD?). And all of us ordinary punters are obligated to pay them a tithe. They might dress it up as a “free” market, but it is anything but.

GraemeF, you’re spot on with the growth obsession. I’m constantly amazed that growth is accepted as “a good thing”. No-one seems to address the question of what happens when we can’t grow any more. Anyone who’s paying attention will realise we have finite resources on this planet. Whether we run out (of coal/oil/space/water/whatever) in five years or 500 is moot. We will run out. It seems to me its irresponsible not to think about when our society has grown enough and how we might sustain it.

denko 24/02/09 2:14PM

mbolan

Yes, agreed - Obama and Rudd are basically saying we can spend our way out of this crisis.

If this is the solution to Australia’s woes, then what neither Obama nor Rudd clarify is why they cap their budget expenditure proposals.

If AUD $ 42 Bn will create a lot of jobs for working class Australians,then surely AUD $84 will create a lot more jobs for working class Australians, then surely AUD $126 Bn will create even more , more jobs for working class Australians ad nauseum…

Why has Rudd settled on the magical figure of AUD $42 Bn?

What non neo-liberal economic principle applies to quantify this amount in his mind? Why is the AUD $42 Bn the Goldilocks amount¿

Is there any economic foundation to the amount at all?

Neither Stevens, Hendry and Gruen are prepared to make a suggestion. But they’d be bureaucratic sops* …**

Or does Australia simply do - what the IMF tells Mr. Rudd to do?

:o(

dunno4sure¿

–––––––––––––––––-

Ringo:-

* Sop - From Middle English soppe, bread dipped in liquid, from Old English sopp-, in soppcuppe, cup for dipping bread in; see seu-2 in Indo-European roots.] ffs2!

** … - An ellipsis is a series of three or more periods.

:o) - does this help¿

Rocky 24/02/09 2:54PM

The problem with economics writers and presumably many economists is that they think economics is a science, it isn’t, the “laws” of economics are ideological positions or assumptions, nothing more. Perhaps they should read more economic history. I’d say predictions of the death of market capitalism are somewhat premature, it works rather well most of the time, the problem lies with the adoption of “self- regulating” market fantasies by otherwise sensible (or greedy)people. Remember the old aphorism “the last resort of every capitalist is the taxpayer and his wallet”

Kevin H 24/02/09 3:14PM

Alex, your critique of economics writers would have more credibility if you did a similar critique on political journalists and their insightful analysis of the performance of the NSW government since 1995. It seemed that many Sydney political journalists were in love with the Carr government from 1995 to about 2004.
Those in glass houses.

neddy 24/02/09 3:17PM

If there’s any form of natural justice (evolutionary biology working at the behavioural level?) the GFC will haul us back from the brink of runaway climate change. ie. limits on, or a reversal of growth due to failing capitalist economies reduces man made greenhouse gas production, which allows planetary atmosphere to stabilise and recover.

If it does I just hope we make the connection between the two things.

Rockjaw 24/02/09 3:39PM

It is really interesting to see how many actually believe that “stimulus plans”, controlled interest rates and general control over the credit and money supply can be called “the free market”.

Here is a clue everybody, the terms “free” and “controlled” are antonyms.

Maryj 24/02/09 3:43PM

I find it hysterical to watch the likes of Chris Richardson, Saul Estlake and others still being pandered to by other parts of the media when they are the very people who got things so wrong.

All that ranting about using China’s boom to lift our wealth was a lie and a hoax that they never bothered to expose.

With trade deficits every year with China we were not making a zac, nothing, nada and zip.

Our miners were not having a boom, they were having a false boom of exploring but not digging anything much up, it was the prices rising and nothing else.

Howard and Costello sold all of the farm and we have not one thing to show for it.

I say gag Richardson and Estlake, or sack them.

breadvanner 24/02/09 3:52PM

We are all doomed. Growth cannot keep going on and on, we will need a new planet. The mess we got into was from borrowing too much at the wrong time of the cycle and now they say borrow more to get us out of it ??? This is all to make the uber rich ,richer and the the poor, poorer. The run on the usa banks in september was the work of very rich Isralias, trying to get america to bomb Iran for them. In australia, you have the pm and opp. leader sucking up to Rupert at his mothers 100th birthday party and Lowy was there too. If you have lots and lots of money, you too can run the country and not be PM. You dont hear much about the 60 Isralia spys arrested before 9/11 or the ones watching and cheering when the towers fell??? Stories disappeared from fox news about this very quickly. So much for FREE PRESS.

denko 24/02/09 4:02PM

Rocky

You say …the “laws” of economics are ideological positions or assumptions, nothing more.

So is Zimbabwe’s hyper inflation only an ideological position OR assumption NOT the ‘laws’ of economic science at work?

When governments adopt a position, say try to sustain an economy through a prolifigate fiscal and monetary expansion, is it fair to say that we have no idea what to expect?

Are we devoid of a science? Do we have neither method nor expectation?

AUD $42 Bn or AUD $84 Bn¿

Who knows?

––––––––––––––––––—

The market’s problem is the adoption of a “self-regulating” fantasy?

Is the “credit crunch” not a very real example of the market “self-regulating”?

If the credit crunch isn’t the market “self-regulating” - then who implements this draconian international regulation?

––––––––––––––––––-

If you can point outside the fantasy to who actually regulates the market, please, please advise…

(Mr. Mugabe I suspect, he would desperately want to know too …) :o)

mil-observer 24/02/09 4:08PM

But Maryj, while we’re at it on Richardson and Eslake (don’t forget tabloid goons like Michael Pascoe and Stephen Mayne too), what about the actual POLICY boffins who keep saying that bail outs are absolutely inevitable (like Soros’ deadly prescription in the 1980s)? The policymakers who gave us this poisoned, dysfunctional system of debt-/derivatives-based garbage - well, those same policymakers are still there, telling us how they’re gonna fix it!

Liberalist policymakers who preached “free trade”, Globalization, privatization and the whole fake monetarist magic show of “growth” for decades.

And those same dullard parasites are still there, now telling us their only “prescription” i.e., workers will just have to keep feeding trillions of fake money into this beast for many years to come.

It’s completely bankrupt, has been for some time, and they know it. Problem is no political leadership has the guts to try doing an FDR (forget Mitchell’s contrivance about Rudd and a “New Deal”). The overwhelming derivatives debt must be canceled, and the bankruptcy proceedings begun in earnest, with appropriate legislation for the safety of real working home-owners and renters and, of course, actual state-subordinated banks. And I don’t mean the absurd merchant bank rubbish that the pollies have been sucking up to for so long or, in Turbull’s case, helping to run!

Of course, there’d be a major risk of a serious “terrorist attack” if and when any politicians with guts made such moral and logically correct moves.

denko 24/02/09 4:10PM

breadvanner

Glad you cleared this all up for us!

‘twas 60 Rabbis from Eilat!
…and a partridge in a pear tree?

And the press missed it!

“Strewth!”

“Who to turn to¿”

:o)

dunno4sure¿

––––––––––––––––––-
 Ringo:- …think!

neddy 24/02/09 4:21PM

Ah - scanning backwards I now see that “quillian 24/02/09 1:35PM” beat me to the Gaia allusion…well done that man.

Perhaps I should stop working now…..don’t want to overheat the ol’ GDP.

Rocky 24/02/09 5:19PM

denko,

where did I say economics, like history, couldn’t make predictions in regard to the economy, that is not a “law” in the scientific sense, as with Newton’s laws of motion or Relativity where a single experiment could invalidate the hypothesis. I refer you to Prof. Steve Keene’s book ” Debunking economics” for a professional critique of the “science” of economics.

The “self regulating fantasy” I mentioned is not the present “correction” but the belief that that debt( including the notorious derivatives) in the US would always be marketed at correct values because economists had developed a mathematical model. The fantasy was that this stuff- up could not occur in the first place, perhaps it wouldn’t have if everyone trading was an economist.

As to who regulates the market, obviously the market itself, however it does so imperfectly, in busts and booms, all these are driven by the limited knowledge of participants, greed and other unsavory aspects of human psychology. I’m sure a science of economics will emerge with time, until then we need oversight of the market by regulators.

athena 24/02/09 5:48PM

Quillian— if you were truly doing “the right thing”, as you self-righteously proclaim, by being a “self funded retiree” (notice how proud he is of the fact! as if it were better than being a humanitarian or as if being poor means it’s your fault!), then why are things now going wrong?

You bought the Neo-liberal bullshit, and forgot that a deregulated market (which really means the rich and powerful doing whatever they like at our expense) renders the market extremely volatile, and that booms eventually lead to busts (to recessions and depressions). Investing in stocks or shares means the risk that you will lose them. Neo-liberal capitalism isn’t called casino capitalism for nothing! Far from doing “the right thing”, you rather profited from the system as long as it was booming—that is to say, gambled on it—burying your head in the sand with respects to its predatory nature; the way it preys on the vulnerable and rigs everything to favour the wealthy, and widens the gap between the rich and poor, creating an economically marginalized welfare underclass not seen in the days of ‘the welfare state’ (really, social democracy) whose purpose was to lift the poor up to the middle class, unlike Neo-liberalism which is designed to keep them there, as they make a cheap source of labour (which is why the Right clamors for them to be thrown off the welfare rolls) . By ridding society of all universal services and following the dogma of privatization and targeting welfare benefits, Neo-liberalism created a poverty trap from which there was no escape (not a problem for Qullian, though, as he was born into middle class affluence, if not luxury, and therefore can afford to delude himself that he got there all by himself and had no help, despite the many resources expended by governments for just his purpose. You should be put in one of those seminars with Jane Elliott). This poverty and dependency on welfare wasn’t hatched from ‘the welfare state’, as New Zealand perfectly demonstrates (there was no underclass in New Zealand when it was a social democracy like Sweden; that only came about when they switched to Neo-liberalism), which tends to close the gap between rich and poor as the Keynesian policies from 1950 to the early 70’s shows, but was manufactured via Neo-liberal ‘reforms’ and deregulated markets (which is to say, by economic policies which removed democratic accountability). And now, only because you’re losing you notice how bad it is; & what a ponzi scheme Neo-liberalism is. When you were doing well, however, you closed your eyes to how it ruined the lives of others, arrogantly pretending to yourself that it was because they were “irresponsible”—as if they had a say in how the economy is run! Just being born in the wrong class was enough to be put at a disadvantage (but why should that bother Quillian. He’s hardly going to admit that perhaps he was at an advantage in the first place, which gave him an edge in life, enabling him to get ahead where a different set of circumstances would have produced a different result. To admit it would be to lose the advantage…)

‘Neo-liberalism was from the start designed to transfer wealth from the working class, or low-skilled and white collar workers—from whom profit was expropriated—to the owners of capital assets and the wealthy whose fortune was tied to stock values. Our unwillingness to redistribute wealth has resulted in poverty being institutionalized. It has caused the kinds of inequality not seen since the 1920’s (the Gilded Age). It has brought about Geo-political conflict, where sovereign states fight for dwindling scarce resources. This didn’t come about naturally but was deliberately engineered by the state by dismantling all democratic protections and government interventions which tamed capitalism’s predatory ways. Those—like Quillian—are unwilling to admit that Neo-liberalism was injurious to the needs of human beings because he has participated in such a system and no doubt benefited from it, until it bit him in the bum too, as a system whose foundation is built on shifting sands of boom and bust cycles, speculative mania and financial crises is eventually bound to do. It’s hardly sustainable.

Quillian fell for the Neo-liberal mantra that investing in the market would give him a nest egg (how’s that working out for you now?). But it’s an economy based on production— and not speculation— which brings about a stable economy, and one which rewards labour (for it is what produces wealth) and not one which rewards capital at the expnse of labour which works best. As your retirement funds dwindle, Quillian, it’s time you blamed your blind faith in capitalism for your dwindling fortunes, instead of blaming Rudd’s stimulus package. You’re not innocent.

Rockjaw 24/02/09 6:06PM

Denko - “…You say …the “laws” of economics are ideological positions or assumptions, nothing more…” - No denko, you said that.

Denko - “…Is the “credit crunch” not a very real example of the market “self-regulating”? …” - Yes denko, that is exactly what I am saying, the market is correcting from years of controls, supression by monetary and fiscal authorities who cannot bear to permit the market to function naturally for fear of banks and state treasurers losing their ability to steal from the productive.

60 rabbis from Eilat¿¿¿¿¿

Rabbi Mugabe has already said that he was the first to use inflation and the stimulus package as a means of stabilising his economy, the USA and Australia are simply applying his wisdom.

Rockjaw 24/02/09 6:20PM

Athena, what a rant!!

“…‘Neo-liberalism was from the start designed to transfer wealth from the working class, or low-skilled and white collar workers…” - two questions, (i) define “neo-liberalism” and (ii) how the hell do they use free markets to transfer wealth from the working class?

Dallas Beaufort 24/02/09 6:40PM

It amazes me that the anti growth lobby arrives once housing prices plateau. If these anti free market heroes did not take advantage of increased investment/home prices above the inflation rate which was reflected in their house prices courtesy of “their state governments prescriptive housing supply regulations” then what upsets them?, Maybe they do not really produce anything of a tangible value for instance, bricklaying, plumbing, painting or building homes, cars, you know ! blue collar jobs” where you get your hands dirty.

denko 24/02/09 6:50PM

Rocky

Okay - you have a concept of science that closely assumes the common ambit of ‘natural’ science.

But sciences - there be many - are commonly more broadly defined.

If ‘natural’ science is the only science you permit within your epistemology then your knowledge and understanding of the day to day operation of politics, economics, business and human ethics, and gosh your whole life-world, outside your interaction with the four primary forces of the universe must be a frustrating place where ideological positions or assumptions dictate so much!

But can mental application find no objective foothold, outside the realm of Newton’s revised(?) extensions?

You say the market correction is ‘imperfect’ as it has no Newtonian ontology¿

Is that it?

Is this a very ideological perspective? Surely?

It is ideological as you would impute idealist assumptions to your understanding of the economy such as, say; expectation of full employment, an equitable (re)distribution, the efficacy of market intervention and other normative qualities - that can not necessarily be explained or attached to the ‘science’.

But the ‘science’ of economics is ‘cold and dispassionate’ it has no ideology. The promptness and scale of this correction, could , if you were to allow a scientific perspective, be seen as a ‘perfect’ economic functioning of the market.

If you accept that, then you are perhaps capable of making that primary ‘first step’ to plan your, and your fellow man’s, impact on, about and around the inevitability of its science rather than desire to warp its precept?

Keynes, sadly is such a man, a man whose fundamental thesis involves a desire to piss very close to the wind. He would find ‘free lunches’ from the soggey sandwich smorgasbord * betwixt the market’s sanitary flushes?

Rudd too believes in an economics that too often sugar-coats his diabetic encrusted sneakers!

––––––––––––––––––––-

Thus what you plan to regulate is the normative rules that some would want to impose on economics, and not, god willing, plan to regulate the rules of the science?

Surely the science speaks to no man!

duuno4sure¿

––––––––––––––––––––—

* “Ringo! You’re slouching!” “Listen up!”

LukeMR 24/02/09 7:37PM

Alex,

I’ve read some pretty good articles about the financial crises on this publication’s site, but that mate, was not one of them.

You are not an economics writer - as you say. And I’m glad. Because to be quite honest, you didn’t make one convincing economic or even social argument in that whole piece.

You made sweeping generalisations about ‘economics writers’ and then made some pretty unfounded an equally simplistic arguments.

I enjoy talking about the economic crises. But not when prompted by arrogant crap like this article.

revilo 24/02/09 7:58PM

Lots of us make virtues out of necessities.
It’s another example of human nature, like the seven deadlies, and SFR’s

The economy does not hae a DNR notice on it.
It wants to prevail.
But if you want women and children first, then you will have to wait for another system/philosophy.

The only one in town has the following 10 commandments: 1. It must make as much money as it can , does’nt matter if it does any good or not. 2.We pay CEO’s and elect leaders who think this way. 3. Gambling on share prices will become a national passtime, and as such, like lottery winnings will be as tax neutral as possible. 4. Economists and their apologists will not be any more accountable than the guys who forcast the weather.
5. Those responsible must be paid (bailed out) first,
6. The debt-poverty cycle must be perpetrated (through the banks) at all costs,by:
7. Making money more expensive for those who need it, especially small businesses (and forcing them to waive their rights as consumers).
8. Laws that favour the snakes who lie cheat and steal.
9. Governemnts who through lack of will or ability let all socialized schemes which benefit the needy fail.
10. Private contractors who plunder public funds with impunity.

denko 24/02/09 10:37PM

Rockjaw

I said? - You said?

Huhh?

Denko - “…You say …the “laws” of economics are ideological positions or assumptions, nothing more…” - No denko, you said that.

Nope - Rocky said it at ‘Rocky 24/02/09 2:54PM’ √

Rocky 24/02/09 11:27PM

denko,

there is only one concept of “science”, ” economic science” and “political science” are impostors. You’re creating a straw man, as I mentioned earlier, economics has useful analytic and predictive functions, however it is not a science like physics no matter how much mathematics are applied, because it is not supported by scientific laws. The market correction is “imperfect”, even in economic terms, my position is logical not ideological, please read my earlier post. I’ll concede that economics is a very difficult subject because of the limitations to ethical experimentation, so vital to scientific inquiry, however the public is a victim of an unethical experiment called “neo-liberal” economics,few economists will pay the price for this delusion.

I don’t understand how you arrived at the ideas expressed in your final paragraph, through the Looking Glass perhaps?

mil-observer 25/02/09 7:57AM

Joe Hockey, 21 August 2007:

“I however disagree vehemently with your analysis that the world is facing a collapse of the financial markets. The last few days have indicated that the financial markets, with the support of central banking institutions, are able to meet the demands that have been placed on them”.

Remember: that’s the guy who just got “Shadow Treasurer”.

They’re just laughing at us, because they know they can’t be touched in their very own corrupt legal system.

GSM 25/02/09 9:08AM

@MaryJ,
You are absolutely correct. Those guys are shills and spivs, tools in a financial industry designed to fleece people of their money. The mainstream media (MSM) are completely in bed with them (media are businesses too!) relying on elevated consumer sentiment for their profits and incomes.

The GFC has exposed this incestuous relationship to those able to open their eyes.

denko 25/02/09 10:37AM

Rocky

Hi :o)

Again you say, what you say.

“Deluded unethical neo-liberal economic experimenters they all be…in the throws of an “imperfect” market correction.”

Logically speaking.

I’ve Goddit!

–––––––––––––––––

Sadly the GCC (global credit crunch) is only an ‘imperfect’ correction?

Why do you think this, Rocky?

As a matter of degree ○;
…the markets should correct more or less?

OR

As a matter of class;
… the market correction is not nice enough or nasty enough?

as an eg. of the quantitative::normative property split.

Or what other quality would you seek to gauge the property of ‘imperfection’?

You being a scientist and all and what not? :o)

Ringo 25/02/09 11:17AM

Haha, Denko - I’m paying attention, don’t you worry.

It’s nice to see you’ve discovered Ludwig von Mises.

Who is this Hendry guy? You don’t mean Ken Henry, surely. And Gruen isn’t employed by Treasury or the government - so your foray into Middle English is kind of stale. Ironically, he has made plenty of suggestions on your ‘magical’ $42b. You should have a look.

Let me suggest, (I’m not an economist or a scientist) that this magical number was chosen as a one off amount. There will be more in May and more again after that but this $42b isn’t tied to ongoing funding or provisions. If you are truly fixated on this amount and believe it has some greater significance eg IMF global conspiracy, then I’ll leave you to it.

Stay off the chems and try steering without the looking glass.

denko 25/02/09 11:26AM

Ringo

Ah good man!

Sop he’d / he be¿ :o)

denko 25/02/09 11:34AM

“Gruen isn’t employed by Treasury or the government”

Oh yeah¿¿

Dr David Gruen
Executive Director, Macroeconomic Group, Australian Treasury

David Gruen is Executive Director, Macroeconomic Group, Australian Treasury. He joined the Treasury in Jan 2003. Before that, he was Head of Economic Research Department at the Reserve Bank of Australia, May 1998 to Dec 2002. He worked at the Reserve Bank for thirteen years, in the Economic Analysis and Economic Research Departments. With financial support from a Fulbright Postdoctoral Fellowship, he was visiting lecturer in the Economics Department and the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton University from August 1991 to June 1993. Before joining the Reserve Bank, he worked as a research scientist in the Research School of Physical Sciences at the Australian National University. He holds PhD degrees in physiology from Cambridge University, England and in economics from the Australian National University

Go here… dunno4sure¿

Ringo 25/02/09 11:43AM

Aaah, I thought you were talking about Nicholas. Touche!

Insert naff emoticons at will!

Rocky 25/02/09 11:44AM

denko,

Thanks for the instruction in Philosophy 101/Econometrics101 and er, your own version of English, however the explanation is simple - the correction is imperfect because the market is imperfect and unless you intend to dazzle me with your knowledge of theology as a justification for a perfect intervention in an imperfect world we’ll have to leave it there.

denko 25/02/09 11:46AM

As to Hendry … oops

*blush* :o(

denko 25/02/09 11:51AM

Nicholas?

errr…

You be the man!

–> Naff said <— so well leave it there, then.

Cheers :o) :o)) :o)))

denise 25/02/09 4:44PM

Great article Alex, although I don’t agree with all of your arguments, I do agree that economic writers so often seem to be flailing in the dark as far as forecasts and predictions go.
But I do know that to over generalise about the way households spend their bonus is a bit rich, because although most of it may have gone into creating a small demand, that demand may have saved a few jobs.
And although much of it may have been flittered away through either gambling, booze or drugs, either way most of it still goes back into the economy to create more demand for goods and services.
However, I do agree with your main premise about the non-revival of a neo-liberal, free-market capitalism, as it has already caused far too much pain and suffering in our communities, to deserve to have such a free rein with other people’s money ever again.
You complain about the non-existence of alternatives by the economic writers, which is obviously not quite true as there have been many suggestions by economists about ways in which capital, resources and labour can be re-configured to either gain more stability in markets or to make the markets more egalitarian.
Although I do predict a general trend away from globalisation in some markets will follow this downturn, as a tendency towards protectionism of one’s own nation’s jobs prevails.
Here’s an idea, perhaps capital need not be so concentrated in banks, management and accounting, and maybe shares could be automatically awarded to productive workers etc.
So perhaps the future economy will be one where there is a closer relatioship between labour and the new, watered-down, capitalist system.
Because in the final analysis however bad a state an economy is in, it has no heart and soul, it does not suffer, only labour - or people, the most important part of the economy do that.

athena 25/02/09 5:15PM

Rockjaw—or is it jabberjaw—asks me to “define Neo-liberalism, as one might expect from someone anal. It’s a disingenuous question, but I’ll humour this popinjay, and proffer a tentative meaning, even if Rockjaw (who is clearly narcissistic, and ever so in love with his own voice) is a right-wing troll (anyone whom they don’t agree with always “rants”; that is to say, speaks in polysyllables too difficult for Rockjaw’s brain to comprehend).

For the record, Neo-liberalism, or market fundamentalism, or market liberalism (or economic rationalism—a misnomer if ever there was one!)—is an ideological commitment to ‘free markets’ (a myth, as there has never been such a thing) and to minimal government (no interference by government; by which they mean, the removal of democratic protections which don’t allow the rich and corporations to do as they please). Hence the move towards free trade, market deregulation, privatisation, the liberalization of finance, no unions, and rolling back welfare and social services (the pillars of Neo-liberalism). The unfettered pursuit of profit—no matter its social costs—is all that matters. Neo-liberals believe that the market is better at managing our affairs!—as long as it’s left to its own devices (yes, we can see, by how economies are collapsing! Iceland is bankrupt, and Greece, Latvia are about to follow. The rest of the world is throwing money at the problem to forestall not just a slide into recession but another depression). For them, the market is ‘natural’ rather than man-made. They believe—and it is predicated on faith not fact—that the market runs us and not people who run markets, which is sort of like believing cars drive people and not people who drive cars. A joke best expresses how batty it is to believe that the market operates like god :

Q: How many economists does it take to change a light bulb?

A: None. They just sit back and wait for the invisible hand to do it.

Then jabberjaw offers this castigation, “how the hell do they use free markets to transfer wealth from the working class!”—the “hell” is meant to convey I don’t know what I’m talking about, even though I never said what he has me talking about. Bland incomprehension is a well known trick of rhetorical denunciation. This gets Rockjaw off the hook of having to work through my arguments point by point ; indeed his post seems to be based on a contempt for understanding them, as he’s a fan of capitalism and the myth of ‘free markets’ however predatory. My point was that Neo-liberalism was always engineered by state power; markets are social systems, products of culture, man-made constructs and not ‘natural’, however much Rockjaw tries to sweep everything into his Neo-classical economic box. Like most bigots, he refuses to contemplate, even in theory, that there may be other economic models on offer and to compare egalitarian social democracy with the effects of Neo-liberalism (no surprise because it would show overwhelmingly that the latter is an abject failure by comparison and callous). Besides, he just wants the government to provide tax cuts to the affluent like himself (That’s one way how wealth is transferred to the rich but Rockjaw knows that).

Ziggy 25/02/09 6:49PM

Quillian, don’t expect any empathy from the likes of athena who is probably a ‘public servant’(to use an oxymoron) with nose firmly in the public trough.

Like you, my lifetimes’ thrift & prudence is abused by KRudd & his henchmen at the Reserve Bank who prefer to rescue the spendthrifts, the greedy, the plain stupid (well, not so stoopid under socialism: you & I are the new stoopid)

My answer to is to withdraw in cash my term deposits as they mature & they can stick their 3%. If enough of us do that, Quillian, we may just rattle their cage.

athena 25/02/09 8:07PM

Oh Ziggy, those rebates you received from Howard for private health (notice his abuse of the ‘public’ sector, says a lot really), plus those tax cuts for just being rich, and the largesse to private schools where you probably send your kiddies, indicate just who has their snout in the ‘public’ trough’. No wonder you can afford to be —what was your word—“thrifty”! Prudent people don’t wager on a volatile market. Fools do.

athena 25/02/09 8:09PM

And, no, I’m not a public servant.

Rockjaw 25/02/09 10:39PM

Thanks Athena, so the short answer to my question is 1- “Athena has no clue” and 2- “a free market cannot transfer wealth away from the working class, socialism is used to do that. Free market systems ensure a transfer of wealth to the working class”

Good heavens Athena, you could have told us you were clueless in one short sentence, why the endless rant?

kapitan kontent 26/02/09 10:18AM

We will know the tide has turned when politics turns on the architects of the boom. To quote myself…

“The Prime Minister needs to review the errors of Scullen, ditch the tawdry advice of those who “didn’t see it coming” and get ready to bite the bullet and abandon, repudiate and punish those responsible for this long terrible sleepwalk into disaster: the property and real estate carny barkers, the directors of public companies unresponsive to the will of shareholders, the housing developers against local democracy, the auditors and accountants who certified an oligopoly of greed and tax fraud prudent in return for a place on the gravy train. And generally, the whole media, business and professional elite that apropriated twenty years of productivity growth on the promise of prosperity for all and delivered instead declining real incomes, insecurity of tenure and equal opportunity disaster.”

It wasn’t an economic system with any merit at all, it was the folly of dollar hegemony.

This will not level out, unwind for a time and then resume, it is the end of dollar hegemony, which will die in fits and starts. Liquidity crises will be followed by free money, stagflation followed by price controls, promises of reform before another crisis, rinse and repeat.

This dollar system, whatever its initial merits, created a moral hazard of such magnitude it is at the verge of destroying the assumptions that backstop the mixed economy. Insiders with access to dollar credit elsewhere in the west who enjoyed this free ride now expect bailouts to preserve a institutional framework soon to be obselete.

interested readers can read more of my polemic, if they want…

http://news.kontentkonsult.com/search/label/kevin%20mckern

Ziggy 26/02/09 12:25PM

You’re quite right, Athena, do forgive me. Forgive my politically incorrect thinking that, after close to 40 years self-employment/running a small business and paying huge amounts in tax, I should get something back.

How selfish of me!

I should be content to see my tax dollars going to public servants who produce nothing (except more departments filled with their own indolent kind). I should be thrilled that they have wonderful super packages guaranteed by a tax payer funded ‘Futures Fund’ to ensure THEIR comfortable retirement on the public teat.

I should be deliriously happy to see my tax dollars supporting endless legions of ‘bad back bludgers’ and assorted dole cheats & single mothers who choose a life-style of promiscuity on the public purse. And don’t start me on the bottomless money pit of the Aboriginal Industry. Or politically left-wing motivated misguided immigration policies - bordering on the criminal - costing taxpayers a fortune in numerous ‘benefits’ and ensuring continued serious societal/criminal problems similar to those now endemic in much of Europe & the UK.

Athena, I stand corrected.

How dare I scrape & save & go without to send my kids to public schools so they aren’t infected with the socialist/Marxist indoctrination of the public school system, courtesy of the Teachers Union. How dare I expect a fair return on my investments instead of cheerfully supporting profligate half-wits who over-borrowed for their McMansions and are now rewarded with almost zero interest rates?

I hang my head in shame.

But, Athena, denouement is at hand and the lowering tide will sink all ships equally. When banks close in Europe or the US (sooner than most think) they’ll close the next day in Oz. Four Pillars? Cardboard!

You’ll see Argentina style riots of very, very angry people with pots & pans – or more – demanding their money back. Fraudulent Fractional Reserve Banking means it just ‘aint there and the printing presses won’t be able to go fast enough (maybe KRudd could do a shift or two on the presses to help guarantee his guarantee; that is, if he isn’t spending more of my tax dollars on yet another overseas trip).

When/if the food supply chains break down and supermarkets and petrol stations close, well, then things will become really interesting (but I’m always good for a cup of rice, if you’re in my area, Athena)

So I’m truly sorry for thinking that hard-working, industrious tax-payers like Quillian & I should have the nerve to consider we deserve a break and that the greedy & stupid & corrupt should be cast adrift to fend for themselves, sink or swim & I care not if they sink & drown.

No. We live in Orwellian times and good is bad, right is wrong and black is white. But here’s a tip: it won’t always be so; change is coming and it’s almost here.

Ziggy
PS
I accept your word that you’re not a Public Serpent. It’s just that my instincts are pretty good and your tone is of a smug & arrogant non-producer – that is, on the public purse in some way. Perhaps you’d be good enough to advise your occupation and I’ll apologise profusely if I’m wrong.

denko 26/02/09 12:44PM

Who is this Keene guy?

You don’t mean Keen¿

–––––––––––––––—

The investigation into the nature of certainty dates back to Plato and Aristotle, and is likely one of the must fundamental enquiries to have absorbed man’s non-mythical meta enquiry.

Keen does seem to do it some justice - but a few pages in a book otherwise ‘pre-occupied’ regrettably cannot do the subject justice. An interesting obiter dicta nonetheless; I imagine Keen is fully aware of the limitation too.

Keen’s considered glare and hoot* goes to Minsky.

Minsky makes some ground exploring the sources of market cyclicality. A sterling effort - but you somehow suspect that once Minsky’s explanatory template is seen/shown to have applied, the market will have outdated and moved beyond the immediacy and off coarse* relevance…

Okay , so it’s the inter-temporal gap - the issue of our time.

Tomorrow it will be rampart re-regulation; protectionism; an economic foreplay stimulus package that ejaculates inflation on a workforce not yet harded by the denial; a denial that once built the US’s modern character; and the empire crippling economics of déjà vu.

Now if Keen can only bum enough cash his research will substantiate his rather awkward ‘dox’ orthodoxy? He may show something economically relevant; although regrettably scientifically irrelevant.

Then he can explain the significance of debt to those who would seek to amass piles of it…

… on our behalf?

(However:- If he was only half as half-smart as Soros - bumming cash would not have been a consideration. Personal ethic’s and moral rectitude are perhaps amiss here? dunno? Besides Soros’ reflexivity touches, if not covers, all the cyclicality bases most ‘bottom feeders’ have missed !)

Equating ‘profits’ to ‘investment’ is Keen’s ‘hoo-boy’ moment/concept y’ad think?

“Hmmm …and those nasty, nasty profits, must lie some-where about the root cause (of evil) too!”

But we wish him well! Overall, he thinks …

[Flicks a condescending nickel/ tuppence through the ether.]

mil-observer 26/02/09 2:31PM

Rocky: “until then we need oversight of the market by regulators”.

But you mentioned too “the notorious derivatives”. What’s the point of regulators’ “oversight” for derivatives that stretch out to one-and-a-half quadrillion USD of unpayable debt (forgive tautology)? That might be a bit like traffic cops expected to “regulate” the fast movers at an airshow.

Even the dimmest among the apparatchiks knows that the entire bankrupt system must be declared so, and put through the receivers’ judgement. The impossible debt must be canceled. Nasty parasite-fascists like Soros would not like it at all, of course, but they should have been fought long ago.

This becomes a problem of political guts. The apparatchiks know that the psycho bankers will arrange a terrorist attack - this time probably a real doozey like a Caesium 137 “dirty bomb” that they’ve always conjured up before states as the greatest concern - if any state dares to try sweeping the monetarist scum into the oblivion it always deserved.

[pending more of denko’s obfuscation of discursive white noise]

denko 26/02/09 3:56PM

mil-observer?

The knowing apparatchiks know that psycho bankers are going to place a real doozey like a caesium 137 “dirty bomb”…in an arranged terrorist attack.

Whow!

i) And this contribution of yours adds to this thread (or any thread) …how exactly?

ii) I am sorry I befuddle you.

iii) George Soros has always been a vociferous proponent of a global market regulation of international banking and any of its functions - capital transfers, currency trade, the international trade of derivatives, swaps, spreads and the structure and operation of international hedge funds, trusts and private equity, mutual funds, unit trusts.

George Soros predicted this crisis more than twelve years ago!

(Sadly it took Stiglitz(sp?) ten years to parrot this thought, and channel that understanding into academia, and ultimately onto the desk of Pres. Obama?

Reflexivity is now spoken in terms of Pareto efficiencies, externalities, and the certainty of counter party risks, and regulated new-Keynsian markets.

That is just the way the world works…)

––––––––––––––––––—

Soros made billions of dollars, and gave it all away. Stiglitz obtained Nobel recognition (for his plagiarism¿) Both nice people! I would be pleased and proud to meet to meet both.

[b.t.w. i) Both I believe, proud (to be) Jews - of a mild agnosticism.]

b.t.w. ii) Stiglitz recognizes that the market FAILS as salaries do not decline sufficiently in times when the market’s labour demand has slaked.

Stiglitz considers that regulation is needed to correct this, (That is LOWER
SALARIES through enforcement to OBTAIN FULL EMPLOYMENT)!

“Ooh! …that has to hurt!”

Do you think KRUDD read that bit¿

(Or, as at his piss-up at SCORES, he can’t quite remember seeing any titty wobbles? Perhaps if Julie flashed a pair it would ‘dog’ his mammary/memory¿)

:o)

b.t.w. iii) mil-observer again - I am sorry if what I say occludes your chain of thought.

:o( dunno4sure¿

mil-observer 26/02/09 5:01PM

Here’s my actual quote, misrepresented by Obfuscating Monetarist Snob:

The apparatchiks know that the psycho bankers will arrange a terrorist attack - this time probably a real doozey like a Caesium 137 “dirty bomb” that they’ve always conjured up before states as the greatest concern - if any state dares to try sweeping the monetarist scum into the oblivion it always deserved.

But the reply was 100% BS, as expected, and nastier and more pompous than the usual BS we expect from Soros toadies. Befuddled one: go keep befuddling yourself somewhere else, flaccid ponce.

Soros only “predicted” this in the same way that some Malthusians could “predict” mass starvation in mid C19th Ireland. Scum like Soros caused this catastrophe by their encouragement for and dependency on the fake-money bubble.

Of course, we should not be surprised. Soros did his apprenticeship working for Eichmann of SS infamy: first reporting the details of Budapest’s Jewish people so that they could be rounded up for the Nazis’ transports; then he looted the properties of those many people sent to Auschwitz-Birkenau (under the same SS bureaucracy that salvaged gold fillings, for example). For an adolescent to have such baggage we would normally hope for some process to have combined remorse and forgiveness. However, Soros is such a committed psychopath that he has gone on public record expressing that he not only feels no remorse for his participation in mass murder and mass looting, but that he feels the same way when making a devastating run on a vulnerable currency. Again, millions of lives destroyed, but for Soros and his mates it’s just business as usual.

Yeah, I’ve read his rubbish about “regulating” the monetarists’ fakery -what vacuous PR. Any pose of “regulating” a sewer like that is merely confirmation of the entire fascist project that Globalization has now brazenly become, as with the Brown-Greenspan promotion of a Global monetarist regime in a resuscitated IMF.

That’s why we regard Soros as a pig-fascist worth far more serious “regulation” than that relatively petty 2002 French conviction of him for insider trading.

GraemeF 26/02/09 5:03PM

Transfer money from the poor to the rich not acceptable? Why do people get taxed less for sitting on their butts shuffling paper for asset gains? Why should profit on shares be taxed at a lower rate than someone who slogs it out producing or value adding to things? Why should people who already own a house be able to negative gear on a second property and when they sell it get taxed at a lower rate when working stiffs paying for a new house get taxed at a higher rate and can’t write off any interest payments? Why have executives who 20 years ago earned 40 times more than the average worker in their businesses now earn over 300 times more? The market is fixed not free.

mil-observer 26/02/09 5:11PM

Ah, GraemeF - you just don’t understand how these liberal monetarists’ higher minds function!

Or their other favorite line: “The politics of envy”!

athena 26/02/09 9:38PM

Jabberjaw—It’s time for your lithium, dear.

Every village has an idiot—Rockjaw, for example. That his reply is silly is hardly surprising coming from an intellectual pygmy like him. “Athena has no clue” is not an argument but an ad hominem attack by a nasty bully. What he means is that he doesn’t agree. But instead of countering with an intelligent, coherent analysis (which, I guess, is hard for someone who’s mentally challenged), he inveighs against me in the vain belief that I will be intimidated. I’m not; I’m amused that someone can be such a numbskull. And, like the right wing loon (and goon) that he is, he predictably goes on to denounce ‘socialism’ (yawn)—which he stupidly misrepresents–(perhaps, because Rockjaw has a trust fund or a rich daddy)— -as “transfer[ring]…wealth…to the working class.” (So, it’s actually Rockjaw who doesn’t have a clue; who’s surprised).

The point of socialism, actually, is that society be classless. It doesn’t unfairly concentrate wealth and power amongst a tiny segment of society, like capitalism, but distributes it more evenly and offers equal opportunities for everyone (not just for some putative entity known as ‘the working class’; what Rockjaw is confusing it with is Marx’s ‘proletariat—not that he cares about particularities, since the purpose of a right-wing troll like him is to shill for capitalism, however exploitative, as he’s one of its beneficiaries and wants to keep on being so at everybody else’s expense. So it’s in his best interest to glorify it, and demonize anything that challenges it, by invoking that favourite boogeyman of the fanatical Right, Stalinism—as if there were any takers for that! Or by pretending that’s what Cuba is. Or by conflating it with communism).

Ooh… Rockjaw is mortally afraid that a big baddie Socialist might come and take his McMansions and golf clubs away! No wonder he sings the praises of Neo-liberalism!—an egalitarian social democracy would require that he pay his fair share of taxes and to get off the pubic gravy train which the likes of Howard bestowed on him for 12 years out of the pockets of workers. Believe me, socialism doesn’t want your golf clubs nor your bad taste in property. It wants the whole of society to own the means of production and for economic decisions to be arrived at democratically and not so only a few parasites like Rockjaw only profit. Genuine socialism isn’t a top down society run by party bosses as in the old Soviet Union or Maoist China—and other nations that use the name of ‘socialism’ but are really dictatorships. That’s not socialism just as China wasn’t a people’s democracy (though no one says there shouldn’t be democracy because Maoist China was one…because everyone knows that they weren’t one but were using the name in an ulterior way, which is how the name of socialism is similarly used and abused). The core of socialism is equality (not that it’s been realized anywhere yet; but that hasn’t stopped the privileged like Rockjaw from shaking in their boots; the last thing they want is an egalitarian democracy. They want to be rich and look down on the rest of us). Socialists believe “from each according to their ability, to each according to their need”—which is a quote Marx borrowed from Jesus (himself a socialist; a little forgotten fact). Society for them functions for the common good and not for a few rich—like Rockjaw and Ziggy; hence the latter’s silly castigation of those who get public benefits but not CEO’s who award themselves huge bonuses while shafting workers and losing their shareholder’s money.

Neither Rockjaw nor Ziggy want wealth to be redistributed, even though it’s the fair thing to do. As the rich and shareholders have nothing to do with the actual making or distributing of products that people buy but are rich only because they own, or have a share in, the means of producing the stuff that others purchase (Bill Gates, for example; he didn’t come up with the software), it’s only right that this wealth is redistributed. After all, without the labour of others, billionaire oilmen like E. Pierce Marshall would have to get the oil out of the ground themselves. Workers are never paid as much as they produce, but less than they do. That is to say, they don’t get equal pay for equal work, because this money (which is skimmed off that pay) is kept by the employer as profit. Indeed a small class of people who do no work get rich because they control the goods and services produced by those who do work (the large majority of the population). Obviously, the lower the wages (that is, the more the employer can exploit the worker for his or her labour, and pay even less for that labour), the more profit there will be for the employer (that’s why employers are all for abolishing unions which bargain for better wages; that is to say, for pay closer to what workers produce—an unfairness ziggy never mention because he’s a troll too). Ha, like hell wealth isn’t transferred to the rich (under Neo-liberalism and the Laissez-faire model of the 19th century—that precisely is what happens; Keynesianism gave some of it back in the form of higher wages, full employment, social security).

Furthermore, there’s no such thing as a ‘free’ market, Rockjaw. Neoliberal capitalism operates through the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO; indeed these regulatory bodies act on behalf of powerful financial interests, such as Wall street and big business conglomerates (I, funny enough, don’t get a say. Free indeed!) Other organizations which shape the market—though we’re all supposed to pretend that that doesn’t happen—are the Council on Foreign relations, the Trilateral Commission and the Bildebergers. To call the current economic order a “free market” is no different from Maoist China calling itself a people’s democracy. These words are euphemisms used to disguise what they really are. By referring to these markets as ‘free’, we’re apparently supposed to swallow that there’s no agency involved; no visible hand, which is nonsense. It takes a real airhead to believe that (which explains why Rockjaw does). Not only are wall street Bankers behind the scenes pulling the strings but many business lobbies (like the International Chamber of Commerce) are also, as poor countries understand all so well. The belief that the market operates as if by an invisible hand (as Adam Smith Stated) is like believing the money placed under your pillow in exchange for your tooth is by the tooth fairy. Don’t worry, Rockjaw will keep saying it is—as if his saying it is what makes it true!

Now stick that up your kyber, Rockjaw—although you may need a map and torch to find it.

Rockjaw 26/02/09 11:02PM

Athena, I see you have posted yet another rant, well done, I think you have just broken the record for the longest stream of drivel in one single rant!

It will take me a while to get around to deciphering the entire rant but in the interim, have you looked up the perfect socialist model lately? Zimbabwe?

Here, let me help you out:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3LdNxV0yPM

The message is, “gold”, the perfect antidote for the world’s distressed, frustrated and starving socialists, and all other control freaks.

athena 27/02/09 1:02AM

Ziggy—or is it, Piggy?—Lord, what a cry baby. So you run a business and have kiddies and live in a leafy suburb and send them to a ‘private’ school (you said ‘public’ but the following lines suggest you meant ‘private’). How so very bourgeois of you! (And he calls me smug).

Wow, you’re so busy breaking your back you have all this time on your hands to sit on your butt and bitch and moan to me. And here I am a scholar, looking after her mentally ill mother, sleeping less than four hours a day, doing the same. Gee, we’re so hard up. That kid in a Mumbai slum is a Rockefeller compared to us.

So you’re cleaning the toilet, are you Ziggy? What’s that?—your wife is; yeah I thought so. And you’re also a white, affluent male. That didn’t give you advantages in life? Society isn’t run in your favour—with most resources being expended for the likes of you. Will you be paying me back because my taxes are funding one of the non-government schools you send your little, snotty darlings to (Naw, I didn’t think so). That’s like the public paying for your Saab without their being able to afford one for themselves. Getting a rebate for taking out private health? Yeah, I thought so.

Will you be paying back your mother, Ziggy, for all that free labour she supplied wiping your butt? Of course not. Besides, isn’t that what women are for.

What’s worse than a Right-wing lunatic is one that’s also a hypocrite. We’re all on the public purse one way or another. I went to a public school after all, as did most Australians. So is John Howard on the public teat, despite adhering to a dogma that states he shouldn’t be (but he’ll make an exception for himself, anyway). All those tax cuts that went to multi-millionaires for simply being millionaires—that grew on trees did it?

Raving on about “single mothers” (like most sexist creeps), “dole cheats” not like those banker cheats or cheats like Enron, hey Ziggy), Aborigines, immigrants —standard fascist scapegoating—isn’t that much different really from Hitler blaming all social ills on Jews.

Just as anti-Semites in Germany imagined Jews were getting rich off their backs, so you Ziggy are under the same deranged delusion that a bunch of randy women are banging themselves silly at taxpayer’s expense (for whom about what—$2 comes from each of us); or that the unemployed are living it up while poor, little ol’ you has to slave in an air conditioned office (Yeah, that $200 a fortnight goes really far). Boo hoo!

That they may find themselves in their predicament because they never had any prospects or opportunities of course just couldn’t be the case. Ziggy needs to believe they’re worthless so he can oppress them with a clear conscience, just as racists need to believe that African-Americans have low IQ’s so they can discriminate against them and not offer any help.

Somehow I don’t think Quillian would like to be associated with pond scum like you, Ziggy. You’re a bigot (Oh, excuse me, “politically incorrect; sounds so much nicer when you put it that way, doesn’t it).

Also, strange as it may seem to a sniveling little scrooge like you but I also have savings and a term deposit and only make little interest on it now whereas before I did better. I don’t have a credit card because I don’t want to rack up interest on it. (I’m way too prudent but when I’ve been adventurous and wild I’ve tended to do so much better). I don’t have a mortgage. I give to the RSPCA and to Amnesty International. I help others. So? I don’t expect a gold star. Not like dingbat there who thinks his boring bourgeois life earns him a standing ovation. Ooh, he’s scrimped and saved. Now there’s something I—and trillions others around the world who aren’t Bill Gates—haven’t done. Only EE Haw there has to be careful with his money. He’s a poor thing—he pays taxes. Apparently he’s the only one. Talk about believing the world owes you something (and he calls me arrogant! Gawd! the hubris of this person).

Sure, I sympathize with those who’ve worked hard all their life, like cotton pickers in the American South or factory workers and tomato growers; not to mention those who have to work three jobs just to make ends meet, as a lot of Americans do. And this spoiled brat thinks that’s what he does! You don’t know how good you’ve got it, Ziggy. You come across as a spoiled brat, having a tantrum because you didn’t get as many toys as the other kids.

What Ziggy’s little tantrum amounts to really is jealousy that he isn’t getting a piece of Rudd’s pie (but I bet he was a recipient of Howard’s largesse). What do I get?, he screams. It’s all me, me, me. All that mindless raving about public servants and their superannuation is nothing but envy—wasted because it mostly exists in his warped imagination. And because he hates public servants so much because of some imaginary great lifestyle they’re supposed to be leading on his taxes! (but not bureaucrats apparently who get tons more perks) he tries to lump me with them too! I’ve won some writing competitions, Ziggy—jealous? Jesus, what a fruit cake. As I sympathize with the underdog, it just must be because I’m one too; his “instincts” say so, so it just must be so. What a meanspirited little creep. I wager I work more than a lazy fart like you. Get off your ass, and clean the toilet.

athena 27/02/09 1:37AM

Jabberjaw—still wetting your pants, I see.

So you do have a trust fund or rich daddy, then? (thought so.) Oh, and don’t forget to look up Chile and Milton Friedman’s “experiment” there; shock therapy in Russia. Oh, that’s right, you’re too busy up you’re fundaments.

Rockjaw 27/02/09 2:50AM

Is it just me or does anybody else notice how some losers simply must blame their own mistakes and miseries on anyone who gives life a go?

denko 27/02/09 11:59AM

mil-observer?

Thanks for the full context of your quote … The knowing apparatchiks know that psycho bankers are going to place a real doozey like a caesium 137 “dirty bomb”…in an arranged terrorist attack..

It truly makes all the difference!

“More’s the whow, gosh and jolly gee‼” …and ever so terribly New Age!

Its so like, past childhood hey? All grown-up churlhood now‼

b.t.w. Who washes the potty-mouth in the mil-observer home - yah cute krudd little potty pants‼

–––––––––––––––––––––

“Right, where are we? Alex Mitchell had something to say about ‘bottom-feeders’”

“How prescient of him!”

Some pick; others peck; but most jus rite-on spread ‘em cheeks & suck!

–––––––––––––––––––––

Of course… dunno4sure¿

dazza 27/02/09 12:58PM

Athena, I am with you on this, and GraemeF, except for the sort of personal abuse being exchanged between you and Rockjaw!
Keep it cool, folks!
Athena, you really do seem to have your finger on the Economic realities of our times, very refreshing. Dazza.

Ziggy 27/02/09 6:15PM

Goodness Athena, that was quite a serve! A man goes up the coast for a day or two for a game of golf and comes home to find this in his mail box! It really hurt me as I admit (as I’m anonymous here) that it was pretty much spot on…even down to almost getting my nickname, which is “Porky’”– true! Just uncanny…scary ….you really are a psycho!

Certainly your post wasn’t well written, nor subtle and you won’t be winning the Booker any time soon ( you’ve won writing prizes? 7th Grade, was it?)

But look, it was enough to cut me to the quick…. I do have a couple of minor corrections, though, if I may be so bold:

1. My Darling Wife does not clean the toilets - the cleaner does (but I do make an effort to run the brush around the bowl of the on-suite in my study to get the really heavy duty stuff off before she comes in of a morning; I’m not totally devoid of feelings for others)
2. Sorry, wrong on the car. I drive a Mercedes as I confess to being somewhat status conscious; DW drives a Prius to do her bit for world ecology or what-ever (utter greeny nonsense, of course - you’d like her, Athena).
3. I’m NOT saying that ALL single mothers with multiple off-spring living on child support are randy. Like most women who have sex for money, it’s just a job, sans feelings. I’m quite sure you can relate to that, Athena, even if it was quite a while ago.

But apart from those minor points, you pretty much nailed me

Of all your colourful descriptors:

pond scum ( I especially like that one) bigot, snivelling little scrooge, cry baby, bourgeois, maniac, right wing lunatic, hypocrite, sexist creep, fascist, deranged, delusional, dingbat, boring, EE Haw, hubris (as in full of), spoiled brat, tantrum(as in throwing), jealous, mindless raver, fruit cake, mean spirited little creep & lazy fart…

I strongly, STRONGLY object to the last as I am NOT lazy. ‘Old fart’ or ‘boring old fart’ or ‘stupid boring old fart’ would’ve been quite acceptable. Please take that on board.

Look Athena, I realise that we’re on opposite sides of a deep social & political divide and sadly, it’s probable we’ll never be close friends. After all, you’re living on government hand-outs & spend your time day-dreaming of actually achieving something, one day (like writing or becoming a scholar).

You’re essentially a tax-payer dependant/free-loading non-achiever, becoming bitter with the dawning recognition of a wasted life. As you become older and less attractive to your gender of choice, you know you’ll eventually pass on & no-one will know or care or remember. Acknowledging that truth, and dealing with all the inevitable denial & hurt is tough. I feel for you.

By contrast, I did achieve my dreams by hard work (3 jobs, 7 days a week non-stop for 2 years to build up capital before starting my business. Then I really started to work hard..) focus (whatever the mind can conceive, it can achieve – an oldie but still a goodie) and perseverance (never, never, never give up. Never).

These concepts, I appreciate, would be totally alien to you and those of your ilk in the lazy ‘its my right’, ‘something for nothing’, ‘the world owes me a living’, – ‘entitlement’ underbelly of today’s society. You’ve probably never heard of Ayn Rand, Athena, but she wrote of what is about to take place in her book, ‘Atlas Shrugged’. I personally just ‘shrugged’ early. Shrugged of you & your parasitical kind.

Never-the-less & despite our differences, I feel there’s a sort of bond (giver & taker?) developing between us, Athena. As a Christian, I’d like to help more, even if only in a small way, by sending you a package: some basics like beans & rice as well as other essentials like soap & razor blades so you can keep yourself looking clean & trimmed & nice. Just because you’re a left-wing, dirt poor, ageing feminist, you don’t have to let yourself go to the pack.

But enough! I think we’re both testing our Host’s patience with our petty, trivial and childish on-line squabble. This forum is provided for (hopefully) intelligent comment & debate on matters of moment, so I’d like to return to Alex Mitchell’s
remarks & make a brief comment (Athena, you can reply to this if you will, have the last kick, but I won’t respond. Quite honestly, I’m already feeling somewhat degraded in engaging thus far with you. No offence intended.
BTW PS Athena, I’m genuinely sorry to hear that your mum is mentally ill. It must have been another bitter blow to discover it was hereditary.

Alex Mitchell said:
The next stages of the crisis can be easily sketched: Not only will major corporations and banks go broke, but so will countries such as Greece, Hungary, Portugal, Egypt, Mexico, Peru, Pakistan and Malaysia. Protectionism has already started in the US (“Buy American”, says President Obama) and the UK (“British jobs for British workers”, says Prime Minister Gordon Brown) and that’s a prelude to currency wars accompanied by trade wars.
Are the economics writers warning of these implicit dangers? No, they’re hopelessly at sea giving risible interviews to the ABC trying to convince listeners that their beloved free market will be resuscitated, if not this year then next.

Alex is right that our economic writers have got it completely wrong for ever. But I disagree with his reasoning that they believe in the free market. They believe, largely, in government. Government to cure all ills by any means: they are mostly Keynesians – throw more govt (ie public) money at it and voila! Problem solved!

The evidence is plain that this is not happening, will not happen. (there is also the question of who pays economic writers’ wages and do they really want to upset the applecart by saying something that even ‘might’ upset their media mogul bosses. This self preservation may act at a sub-conscious level but act it does. A man is what he does; he is his job, his job is him. It is all important & often its preservation overcomes truth, morality & common sense).

Alex is correct about the next stage of the crisis, but he’s being wildly optimistic in my opinion - or at least, not spelling out the inevitable consequences of a general banking collapse (not to mention collapse at National level).

The ‘implicit dangers’ he obliquely refers to is WIDESPREAD SOCIAL UNREST. That means violence, robberies, assaults, murders, mayhem. The underbelly of society will have its day in the sun. Police Forces (in Oz at least) inadequate & inefficient at the best of times, will be in total dis-array and of no or little use. We will discover what it’s like to be self-dependant for the safety & welfare of ourselves & our loved ones and it will come as a huge shock to most. It will be horrific and soft, welfare dependant ‘entitlement’ societies (like ours) will fare particularly badly as mob rule & violence hold sway, possibly for an extended period.

We face this break-down in society in 2010-2012 following bank closures later this year (WATCH MARCH 20 2009 AS A CRITICAL DATE). The total collapse of the world financial system will engender social strife & chaos not even imagined by the most pessimistic.

Eventually, a new political & economic system will evolve out of the turmoil. The worst of socialism, of robbing the productive to give to the lazy & unproductive will be swept into the dustbin of history. So will the worst of Capitalism, the unmitigated greed & lust for power will be replaced by a new, fairer way. Politics will change dramatically. All of this is not prophecy. It’s inevitability. Just read history then watch the news.

Porky (formerly Ziggy)

athena 28/02/09 6:22AM

Ziggy—true, boring old fart does describe you nicely. But you should seek psychiatric help for your narcissistic personality disorder. Talk about delusions of grandeur! The maid cleans the toilet—and you’re hard working! (Yes, golf is sooooo…third world; it’s such toil).

Still sooking, I see, because I won’t prop up your fantasy of yourself as a battler. And just in case we’ve cottoned on that he’s a member of the upper class, he fabricates a story of having worked three jobs, which we only have his word for (just as we only have his word that he was “self-employed”, which usually means unemployed).

The fact is Ziggy you’re typical of your class—sneering, self-appointed aristocracy, parasitically living off the hog of the land, getting government hand outs (tax cuts, rescue packages, the introduction of regressive taxes which shifts the burden onto real, hard working lower and middle earners), pretending hereditary advantages played no part in your attainment of capital, only merit; promulgating the fiction that you owe your privileges to your own efforts, blissfully ignorant of your debt to the past and to past generations, so it’s no surprise that you’re happy to trash the environment for the next generation and feel no need to leave them anything.

This is typical of elites who vote Tory (which is what the pompous Ziggy sounds like and may explain why he said he sends his children to a public school, as that’s what private schools are called in Britain). To promote the illusion that their ‘success’ rests solely on merit or hard work, it’s important to this class that the disadvantaged be seen as having gotten that way by being feckless. The myth of the feckless poor is spread, so as to confer legitimacy upon their wealth as well as disguise how they exploit the masses to get it. Hence the vile scapegoating of those not involved in production (which is to say, not labouring for the rich)—the unemployed, single mothers on benefits (but, typical of their misogyny, they fancy all single mothers are on benefits since, for reactionaries, like Ziggy, a woman ought to be in service to a man; hence their irrational hatred of feminists), students, Aborigines (all lumped together; no surprise, given the dominant class is white); and any other segment which they find ‘undesirable’ because they don’t march under the Thatcherite banner (those in Academia like me; that doesn’t count as work apparently because it’s not lining Ziggy’s pockets, or so he fancies).

I’m not surprised Ziggy worships at the feet of Ayn Rand (since it provides an excuse for selfishness and using others). The reason he like Ayn Rand is because like her he believes all human relations should be based on the principle of trade (by which she meant the market). Hence placing the family above the making of profit (or to use her favourite euphemism, ‘productive’ work—unproductive work being I suppose raising children, being a poet, etc.) would be unthinkable to her, and to Ziggy. Only market relations matter, nothing else. You only have a right to exist so long as you’re making a profit. That counts the retarded , the brain damaged, the mentally ill, ballerinas, and poets. Wow, and we all thought the Soviet union was rough. So convinced was this ninny in the overwhelming power of the mind to control the circumstances of one’s life, she thought cancer (which she developed) was the the result of philosophical and psychological flaws in the individual; something the individual in other words brought upon themselves. Hardly surprising then that she thought her husband’s dementia was nothing but his inability to use his mind to reason; nor is it startling that she mocks the club in “Atlas shrugged” for helping needy women; let them be damned: they deserve to suffer for being vermin (that is, for not applying reason to direct their life to some purpose; not being philosophers, it’s hardly surprising)—not something Jesus would have been in favour of. This is who Ziggy admires—: a woman who thought selfishness was a virtue; and he’s a Christian— somehow I don’t think Opus Dei or devil worship are officially recognised. Alan Greenspan was a Randian too; but then we have Randians to thank for our current economic turmoil: but I bet they won’t be held accountable for their choices and actions or be seen as vermin for being parasites, freeloaders, like Ziggy there who hypocritically pretends he’s not a taker and beneficiary of state subsidies (and why tries to turn the table and make me one, despite my accomplishments which are easily proven unlike his own imaginary ones).

But then Ziggy is a Right wing troll; it’s his business here to spruik for Neo-liberalism, now that it’s fast becoming obsolete and he might have to pay his fair of taxes. No wonder he’s scared.

dazza 28/02/09 1:07PM

Wow, ‘athena’ you sure have a way of putting things. But I can not disagree with you, at least on the economy situation! I just wish I could be sure that Let ‘er Rip Capitalism IS dead! There are an awful lot of very rich people out there still, in positions of power, who will want badly to retain their swill-troughs. Badly enough to ‘white-ant’ all efforts to clean up the system. I am a pessimist! Dazza.

athena 28/02/09 5:14PM

Hi Dazza—it’s nice hearing an intelligent voice for a change. I certainly agree with you that the Fat cats are still doing all they can to keep us footing the bill for them. Why not; it’s a nice deal. By having us work our butts off, they can swan about on golf courses. So it’s no surprise that they’re pissed off that they might have to get off the gravy train and actually pay their way. After all, they want to continue evading their taxes (even though the dough they made could not have been possible without the labour being provided by others ). They made a bundle from deregulation, the casualisation of the work force, and unpaid overtime, even though for workers it meant the loss of job security and living standards (the social consequences never matter to them). By replacing social spending and welfare benefits with user pays, the few were able to accumulate wealth like never before at our expense. But it’s precisely this greed fest that has caused the economies of the world to implode. The Neo-liberal ideology of the ‘free market’ has certainly been exposed for the Ponzi scheme it is.

Yet governments are dealing with the crisis by mitigating it, and ameliorating its ill effects, when they should be ending it. They’re bailing out banks instead of taking over the banks. They’re helping speculators when they should be changing the system from one based on speculation to one based on production. In other words, they’ve been managing the crisis by adhering to the ideology which created the mess in the first place. There is change on the way. stimulatory packages have been passed to help the people rather than the fat cats (and oh, how they’re screaming murder; let them, they can’t win). The rest of us need to keep the pressure up so that we aren’t made to pay for their crisis. The rich are already trying to make us pay by sacking workers and cutting wages. That’s why we must fight back.

Rockjaw 28/02/09 5:17PM

Ziggy, don’t feed the pugalista troll. the best way to get them foaming at the moth is to ignore them. Go buy one of those “F*ck the Poor” bumper stickers for that Merc of yours and watch them choke on their own spit.

Freedom Ziggy, that is how you judge the success or failure of a political economic system, you judge it by the extent of freedom enjoyed by its participants and not by the number of bludgers the system can force its citizens to support before the whole country reaches starvation level.

athena 28/02/09 5:29PM

Jabberjaw—Still mooching off daddy? What do you call those who live parasitically off others again—oh, that’s right, bludging. It’s you to a tee.

mil-observer 01/03/09 11:41AM

Athena, I think your diagnosis is more or less accurate, as is your identification of the actually parasitic urges within Neoliberalism. I won’t enter the spat with rockjaw, though I expect he should try to explain his own non-parasitical, Gold Standard credentials sometime soon. ;-)

Your case concerns me on two points…

“They’re bailing out banks instead of taking over the banks”. Well, if the state takes over the banks, then the state merely takes on the banks’ oppressive, unpayable debts. The banks are essentially bankrupt; that dirty secret cannot be hidden any longer. Therefore, institutional and legal processes for bankruptcy are a crucial part of any state effort at restoring their old social-democratic responsibilities for central control and issue of credit.

Nationalization of bankrupt banks (as mooted by ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown - himself advised by bubble-blower Greenspan) would only effect certain legal and institutional disaster for the people by saddling the people formally with such massive, unpayable debt. Remember that the derivatives bubble bloated out to around USD 1.5 QUADRILLION.

“…stimulatory packages have been passed to help the people rather than the fat cats”. How are you so sure of that motive? Stimulus packages may seem to be directed at the common people but, on the monetarist’s myopic chessboard, the intended greater spending is meant to help the fat cat bankers to stay afloat in this rising tide of long-term, derivatives-borne debt.

The long-term problem with “stimulus packages” (like with bail outs) is their ultimately hyperinflationary effect. This is shaping up to be Weimar Germany writ large. That’s why it’s getting set for a corporatist push towards fascism, whereby only the (bankrupt) leading creditors themselves judge whether they have defaulted on their own debt commitments.

mil-observer 01/03/09 12:17PM

I should have added some considered comment about the recent Australian federal political context around the latest “stimulus package”.

Ex-Goldman Sachs spiv and FAI-HIH lawyer Turnbull has made a show of opposing the plan. But this should not be seen as some latter-day realization of principle by a neoliberalist banker: Turnbull has backed practically every bail-out and fake “stimulus” scam ever mooted since Bear Stearns vaporized by mid-2007. He’s even gone on record to whine that there should be greater looting of the state/public reserves in order to back himself and his parasitic mates!

Therefore, Turnbull’s “opposition” is just a calculated effort at electoral manipulation. This should actually concern us more as another indicator of the general timing for the systemic disintegration we now witness. Turnbull and his confidantes doubtless perceive some looming advantage in being (finally) seen as “responsible”, “not profligate”, etc., once the hyperinflationary storm really hits.

So why does the state effect no bankruptcy proceedings or actual “New Deal”? I state again: “the threat of terror”,

12next ›last »