L
lightswitch
Guest
My apologies Purple, I clearly mis-understood your first post as reading your response to mine would indicate. LS.
A bit OT, but can someone explain to me why Anglo could not be allowed to fold originally without any intervention by the govt?
If a business over-extends itself and runs up huge debts, it goes under. Why not a bank (or at least a bank like Anglo where very little of the deposits are held by the general public, I assume) ?
OK, so lots of private investors will lose their money. Is the fear that the govt could then let AIB, BOI et al do the same and so all investors will run and take their money out and leave the entire banking system insolvent?
Sorry for the OT query, but it's all related, isn't it ?
Because there are a lot of bodies buried in Anglo, and our political elite do not want us to know what they have been up to....
It is indeed a fascinating time, and a time when politicians did what they were meant to do, that is legislate and not interfere in the affairs of the public. You are right about Jefferson being suspect of the big capitalists, but more from the point of view that he feared crony capitalism and Hamilton's mercantilist ideas. He was in favour of free markets, opposed to The First Bank of the US, had read Adam Smith, Turgot and Ricardo, knew JB Say, and was outspoken against Hamilton's ideas of protecting corporations and banks.I’m no expert on Jefferson, of indeed on anything much, but I do find that period from 1780 to 1800 very interesting (France, UK, USA and Russia).
From my limited knowledge of Jefferson he was strongly opposed to, and very suspicious of, the Philadelphia and Boston capitalists. The idea that Capitalists could be pro-democracy was an alien concept in the 1780’s (or the 1760’s) but Jefferson, from what I understand, while being a strong advocate of states’ rights did realise that without a strong central government the union would not hold. Jefferson’s heart was in the camp that supported a loose confederation of states which were based on an agrarian smallholding model but his head knew it wouldn’t work. In the end pragmatism won the day and the dislike of central banks was trumped by the dislike of private capitalists that could hold undue influence over the economic affairs of the state. The Federal Reserve is not called the Federal Central Bank for a reason.
Exactly, this is the main controlling and regulating function of the profit and loss system. Profits encourage risk taking, losses encourage prudence. Take a way the fear of losses and the system falls apart, just like it does in such regularity. This indicates a failure of government intervention, not of free markets, which simply do not exist.A bit OT, but can someone explain to me why Anglo could not be allowed to fold originally without any intervention by the govt?
If a business over-extends itself and runs up huge debts, it goes under. Why not a bank (or at least a bank like Anglo where very little of the deposits are held by the general public, I assume) ?
This is exactly what our politicians would like us believe, that there would be a total and sudden collapse of banking and even society. Bankrupt businesses do not simply shut the doors, they are liquidated and sold off in pieces. Look at Quinn, it was declared insolvent, but for the customers it is pretty much business as usual.OK, so lots of private investors will lose their money. Is the fear that the govt could then let AIB, BOI et al do the same and so all investors will run and take their money out and leave the entire banking system insolvent?
This is a point that is often missed. People say capitalism brought us down and that we need more regulation - but we had plenty regulation, they were just utterly incompetent or corrupt. So what we are looking at is an increase in power and function for those that were incompetent or corrupt? Hardly the solution we need.Exactly, this is the main controlling and regulating function of the profit and loss system. Profits encourage risk taking, losses encourage prudence. Take a way the fear of losses and the system falls apart, just like it does in such regularity. This indicates a failure of government intervention, not of free markets, which simply do not exist.
Because there is absolutely no hope in hell of the private sector providing equal access to essential services for everybody.Why would anyone want more of it?
Yes, but we don't separate the legislature and the executive and that’s the biggest failing of our governmental model. Our electoral system only exacerbates the problem but it doesn’t cause it. It’s amazing that the Founding Fathers of the United States, with no template or examples to work from, instinctively understood this 230 years ago and we still don’t.This is a point that is often missed. People say capitalism brought us down and that we need more regulation - but we had plenty regulation, they were just utterly incompetent or corrupt. So what we are looking at is an increase in power and function for those that were incompetent or corrupt? Hardly the solution we need.
It also amazes me that people want bigger government when our government has been shown to be so useless. Why would anyone want more of it?
So the origional idea, as you pointed out, was the best. A government which legislates and interferes as little as it can in the day to day affairs of the people.
Because there is absolutely no hope in hell of the private sector providing equal access to essential services for everybody.
I hold much the same views, and it annoys me that socialists have stolen the 'Liberal' tag and applied it to their own ideas of equality and social engineering. The real liberals need to reclaim this tag and put it back in it's place - that of liberty.I’m a liberal so I am in favour of individual rights and minimal governmental interference. The problem here has been crony capitalism coupled with a ham-fisted attempt at social(ist) engineering aimed at an ill thought out “Social Justice” agenda.
Because there is absolutely no hope in hell of the private sector providing equal access to essential services for everybody.
Nope - I don't.And you think our government have been such a success in this regard that we should give them even more power?
Nope - I don't.
Feel free to attack for my views, but please don't try to put words into my mouth.
You beat me to it. It annoys the hell out of me that when I tell people I'm a liberal, I have to annotate that I am a classical liberal. I am not sure whether the Orwellian Newspeak, i.e. liberalism, as in neo-liberalism = socialism, will be reversed any time soon, and personally I rather spend my time on arguing for the fundamental ideas. It's nice to see like minded people around that are putting in the effort to highlight that government is the source of not the solution to our problems.I hold much the same views, and it annoys me that socialists have stolen the 'Liberal' tag and applied it to their own ideas of equality and social engineering. The real liberals need to reclaim this tag and put it back in it's place - that of liberty.
But the problem with this is that governments have increased their size in order to take on the delivery or control of ever more "essential" services, resulting in all the services being at best mediocre.Because there is absolutely no hope in hell of the private sector providing equal access to essential services for everybody.
A look at the international money pages gives the thumbs up to Ireland's management of this economic hole. The WSJ has OK'd it, The Herald Tribune has wafted to and fro. But the overriding comments overseas is that Ireland's media and opposition parties keeps crucifying and regurgitating the bad news like a pernicious mother-in-law. Stephen Stanley says that USA's figures do not herald a double-dip ......... but that doesn't stop the homegrown soothsayers in the opposition from flinging this cliche around (like snuff at a wedding). Ireland (and the world) will get over this ........ much to the chagrin of the Jeremiahs.
But the problem with this is that governments have increased their size in order to take on the delivery or control of ever more "essential" services, resulting in all the services being at best mediocre.
Here are some of our "essential" services to name just a few:
1) Agriculture, fisheris and food
2) Heritage and Local Government
3) Tourism, Culture and Sport
4) Enterprise, Trade and Innovation
And all of these are filled with committees, agencies, offices, etc. And while all these extra services are being provided, the most essential ones (health, education, justice/policing) are in such a dire state that you would think the boom of the last 15 years never happened.
The main role of government should be restricted to protecting the citizens from foreign or domestic violence, and enforcing property rights. I'll even accept if they take on education, a Swiss style health system and some infrastructure. But until they manage to provide this at an adequate level, they should not be taking on extra responsibilities that they pay for through taxation in order to provide a crap service, and get their hands out of the free market.
Your faith in the free market is quite touching. I have absolutely zero faith that the free market will take any role in keeping BSE out of the Irish cattle herd, or protecting our national heritage, or keeping 'bungalow blitz' planning out of our rural areas. I'm no expert, but I'd imagine there is a pretty good return on the Govt services to tourism and sport. We've seen the US take on 'small Govt'. Small Govt is great for those who have the funds/resources/networks to ensure they stay on top of the pile and exploit the rest. For those not on top of the pile, it doesn't tend to work so well.
Some public services are indeed crap, and fundamental changes and improvements are needed. But that is no arguement for a fundamental shift towards Small Govt. You don't fix an ingrown toenail by amputating above the knee. You fix the toenail.
I accept this is not entirely on topic but it is interesting to see the differing approach of the Irish public versus those of Greece and more recently France.Union leaders are aiming to put two million protestors onto the streets and disrupt rail and air traffic, as well as schools and hospitals with stoppages that began yesterday evening. Opinion polls show two-thirds of voters think Mr Sarkozy's plan to raise the retirement age from 60 to 62 and make people work longer for a pension is unfair. However, two thirds also think the strikes will make no difference.
The conservative government says the reform is essential to balance pension accounts by 2018, reduce the public deficit and preserve France's AAA credit rating.
The strikes are expected to force the cancellation of half of rail and underground services and short-haul Air France flights, and 25% of Paris flights by other carriers.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?