David Cameron - a Thatcherite and opponent of populism

BonnieDundee · 10-10-2008, 12:59 AM

Quote:

Both of which are relevant to this particular crisis, which is a monetary crisis (why it is called the credit crunch, or credit crisis as it may now be known).

Because credit is money mate.

Quote:

The central banks have a very large role to play in what has happened, by regulating the money supply.

The money supply is endogenous, it mostly comes from within the market and is, within normal parameters, only influenced by the state and central bank.

Quote:

Especially with the increase in interest rates in the early 2000's allowing for easy money (one of many sufficient causes).

The workings of interest rates are rather complex and "easy" money doesn't mean much. Higher interest rates could summon forth more economic activity than lower ones technically.

It would only have the effect that particularly the Austrians are always subscribing to it it was an relatively fixed equilibrium for credit. Which is ironic given the general Austrian feeling on equilibriums. If the changing of interest rates itself could change this equilibrium, which is extremely likly(See Sraffa 1926.) as they have a significant effect on most sectors of the economy, then it can't be said that "artificially" influencing it will have a negative or positive effect at least without looking at many other factors of the current economy.

But I too believe that free banking along social credit or mutualist lines, similar to some of the proposals you mention, could very much be the solution to some of the monetary problems of capitalism.

Mikeuk · 10-10-2008, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gc

No, I prefer 21st century economics and politics.

Thats because I, and my children, live in this century, and we don't confuse history with politics.

In which century would you place the National Front Gary?

I only ask because you were their London Regional Organiser and an NF Council Candidate.

Personally, I would say the '30s of the last century, but what do YOU thank?

Mikeuk · 10-10-2008, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gc

"Prior to WWI the Tory Party...."

If you want to know why right-wing politics have failed, then one might consider their position of perspective, and their subsequent total disenfranchisement.

Yep. At the dawn of the 21st century we need to worry about what the Tories were thinking "prior to WW1".

Actually, those of us who, like our children, live in a different age, might consider this to be not politics, but history!

Gary. If Nigel kicks you out of UKIP don't bother applying to join the Conservatives.

For some strange reason CCHQ has your card marked already.

Now I wonder who could have told them

Baron von Lotsov · 10-10-2008, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by British-Conservatism

Libertarians defending this mess by saying "it wasnt a real free market" are begining to sound very like the Socialists who say "the Soviet Union wasnt a real Socialist state".

It's a fact, not an opinion. The market is a mathematical thing essentially, and exhibits different behavior dependent on a few fundamental conditions. It's really criminal of the government to refuse to teach basic economics at school, or else far more people would understand the basis of our democracy. The Soviet Union was the antithesis of a free market, surely you should know that?

The solution is to free the market up and make it possible for many more private banks to operate. Huge monopolies must be broken up and the same goes for the energy business where we are being ripped to pieces by cartel practices and price fixing. This is really the only regulation needed, to ensure cartels are not formed, as they are anti-competitive. This financial crash is just such a cartel crashing the market in order to make a profit. They have done the same thing over and over again for the best part of a century.

g hall · 10-10-2008, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gregory Lauder-Frost

. .they had things like the Milk Marketting Board (abolished by M Thatcher) and 'recommended retail price' (also dropped by Conservatives).

The MMB was established in 1933 and in 1993 the government proposed that the MMB should become a voluntary co-operative

Emerald: Article Request - A Milk Shake-up: The Proposed Demise of the Milk Marketing Boards

Vol.12 - 3. Promotion and marketing of dairy and beef products

Mrs Thatcher was forced out of office in November 1990

BBC - History - Margaret Thatcher (1925 - )

Baron von Lotsov · 10-10-2008, 03:18 PM

Here, this is why people don't understand. They pay their license fee for an organisation that is bound by a Royal charter to be a public service and to be educational, but this is what we get.

To start with the question everyone wants to know the answer for:

"Q&A: Why the big market falls?"

Answer:

Quote:

Why are European markets down so far?

To an extent it is a game of global follow-my-leader.

New York's Dow Jones Industrial Average closed down 7.3% on Thursday, taking the index below 9,000 for the first time for five years.

More worryingly, the Dow has now fallen 20.9% in seven days.

The baton passed onto Asia, where the Nikkei in Tokyo closed almost 10% down and the Hang Seng in Hong Kong dropped 7.2%.

And then European shares did the same.

In other words the only answer we get in that is "follow-my-leader" amongst a load of gibberish that has nothing to do with the question, i.e. telling you they are down rather than why.

How does that help us? Answer: it doesn't.

So next go. We are told something is worrying them.

Quote:

What is worrying all these investors?

Every now and then in recent weeks, there have been signs of optimism on the markets, especially when the $700bn (£414bn) bank bail-out package in the US was passed.

The trouble is that banks have still not started lending money to each other.

"Despite the huge fire fighting efforts of central banks worldwide we still haven't seen any thawing of interbank lending - that is going to be causing the most concern now," said CMC Markets dealer Matt Buckland.

"US and European tax payers have collectively tried to dig the financial sector out of one almighty hole but the response certainly hasn't been as planned," he added.

There are real worries that if the promise of $700bn is not enough to sort out the problem, then we really are in trouble.

Again a load of stuff to say they are worried but only the end do we get any attempt at answering the question, namely: "$700bn is not enough to sort out the problem" but we still don't know what the problem is except that they are following their leader.

After that, one it tempted to give up with the BBC and cancel the TV license.

BBC NEWS | Business | Q&A: Why the big market falls?

g hall · 10-10-2008, 03:34 PM

The governments in question should have let the firms in trouble sink it might have brought some sanity to the markets

As regards causes pushing up energy prices in the name of decreasing CO2 footprint and introducing things like HIPS (notice all EU bright ideas) while the public sector is still haemorrhaging money might also have something to do with it.

If governments did nothing wouldn't life be so much easier

Baron von Lotsov · 10-10-2008, 04:04 PM

I think the main thing though is the government is actually making the problem worse by causing less competition in the market. It sets than playing field such that it is advantageous to be a monopoly. Look at Tescos, the government backed that company even to the extent that it overruled appeals to district councils on planning refusals. This is just one example of a wider picture and as it allows firms to buy up large segments of the market it is asking for trouble. They did the same thing with relaxing monopoly controls over the media ownership and now they want to nationalise banks, meaning they become an even bigger monopoly. You see if we had lots of small banks in strong competition with one another like they do in Malta then if one bank screwed up it would have virtually no effect on the overall market. The more there are the more stable the system, it is statistical averaging that makes it stable.

British-Conservatism · 10-10-2008, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baron von Lotsov

I think the main thing though is the government is actually making the problem worse by causing less competition in the market. It sets than playing field such that it is advantageous to be a monopoly. Look at Tescos, the government backed that company even to the extent that it overruled appeals to district councils on planning refusals. This is just one example of a wider picture and as it allows firms to buy up large segments of the market it is asking for trouble. They did the same thing with relaxing monopoly controls over the media ownership and now they want to nationalise banks, meaning they become an even bigger monopoly. You see if we had lots of small banks in strong competition with one another like they do in Malta then if one bank screwed up it would have virtually no effect on the overall market. The more there are the more stable the system, it is statistical averaging that makes it stable.

Or we could have just had one Nationalised bank and none of this would now effect us.

Baron von Lotsov · 10-10-2008, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by British-Conservatism

Or we could have just had one Nationalised bank and none of this would now effect us.

You really think that? A national bank will be run by the clowns called Nu Labour. That means it only takes a handful of clowns to screw things up. Anyway, why stop at banks? Why not nationalise everything?

10-10-2008, 03:34 PM	#27 (permalink)
g hall Uber Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: erewhon Posts: 5,581	The governments in question should have let the firms in trouble sink it might have brought some sanity to the markets As regards causes pushing up energy prices in the name of decreasing CO2 footprint and introducing things like HIPS (notice all EU bright ideas) while the public sector is still haemorrhaging money might also have something to do with it. If governments did nothing wouldn't life be so much easier __________________ "That government is best which governs least." "This is a sharp Medicine, but it is a Physician for all diseases and miseries". "To be "matter of fact" about the world is to blunder into fantasy --and dull fantasy at that, as the real world is strange and wonderful." Remember TANSTAAFL and TANJ

10-10-2008, 04:04 PM	#28 (permalink)
Baron von Lotsov Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 1,133	I think the main thing though is the government is actually making the problem worse by causing less competition in the market. It sets than playing field such that it is advantageous to be a monopoly. Look at Tescos, the government backed that company even to the extent that it overruled appeals to district councils on planning refusals. This is just one example of a wider picture and as it allows firms to buy up large segments of the market it is asking for trouble. They did the same thing with relaxing monopoly controls over the media ownership and now they want to nationalise banks, meaning they become an even bigger monopoly. You see if we had lots of small banks in strong competition with one another like they do in Malta then if one bank screwed up it would have virtually no effect on the overall market. The more there are the more stable the system, it is statistical averaging that makes it stable. __________________ "A government big enough to supply you with everything you need, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have..."

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode