Financial crisis ! whats your opinion and why :)

Original post by Genius7

Lol Your statement is quite simply ridiculous.

We have regulation in almost all walks of life saying that something that needs regulation is bad is like saying all things are bad we have regulation in:

the food industry (so people know what they are eating where it comes from and so that it is not harmful)

the labour industry ( Child labour laws to protect young children from great harm)

We have regulations, indeed most of them are counter productive, but nobody argues that labour markets would collapse without regulations or we would have no food without regulations. Which is what people argue with regard to banking. Without state intervention the banking system we have today, would cease to exist.

Regulations on food do not make food better for consumers, they actively make it worse. Food suppliers have a strong incentive to make sure the food they supply is safe and of a high quality without government influence. People would soon stop shopping at Tesco and go somewhere else if the Tesco food was dangerous. Particularly today with the power of the internet allowing consumers to share information with each other instantly across the world.

Child labour laws are again counter productive for the most part. The reason children do not work in the UK is because we are so productive that one parent can support a child. In the past this was simply impossible. We have got rid of child labour not because of laws but because of increases in the productivity of adults.

What you are effectively saying is that there is a perfect economic system with no need for regulation out there which is beyond a ridiculous notion. However if you are so confident about this then please tell me.

A system that relies on regulations just to keep going, not to improve market conditions, is a bad system. It will sooner or later fail.

Also your belief that FM economists have no real influence on government policy is totally wrong. The UK is one of the most economically liberal states in the world with almost total financial liberalisation (one of the main pillars of FM economics).

As you are so well informed and know all about these things, would you mind telling me where most money comes from?

Your statement also largely ignores the fact that as times change systems have to deal with new products and new technologies. I don't know of any systems that can perfectly predict the future and naturally evolve please explain those to me. Regulation is a natural part of any system its people like you who are unrealistic and come up with no practical measures but grand ideologies that really annoy me.

There is nothing more permanent than a temporary government program. If your argument is that things change, and therefore we need government to be dynamic and adjust, then you have another thing coming.

And I do come up with practical measures. I actually have some policy proposals. All you can do is refer vaguely to some kind of regulation of a system you do not understand. But hey....... that is the hubris of ignorance.

Reply 23

lifesabeach

11

Original post by Classical Liberal

As you are so well informed and know all about these things, would you mind telling me where most money comes from?

Mortgages and loans from commercial banks :wink:

I say, we kill all commys and make archer, leader of the gorgonites, PM!!

Reply 24

Hanvyj

17

Original post by Classical Liberal

Child labour laws are again counter productive for the most part. The reason children do not work in the UK is because we are so productive that one parent can support a child. In the past this was simply impossible. We have got rid of child labour not because of laws but because of increases in the productivity of adults.

Hahaha, except for those people who can't. I'd like to see one parent support, say, a group of three people on minimum wage alone... What about the unemploed?

Also - some people are awful awful people and don't care about their children and would send them to work for a little extra cash in the pocket regardless about whether they could support them without it...

Reply 25

Original post by Hanvyj

Hahaha, except for those people who can't. I'd like to see one parent support, say, a group of three people on minimum wage alone... What about the unemploed?

Also - some people are awful awful people and don't care about their children and would send them to work for a little extra cash in the pocket regardless about whether they could support them without it...

Then we use these things called benefits. Where the unproductive can benefit from the efforts of productive people.

The point is that our society is so dammed productive that we can support children so they need not work and they can spend their time in education. That is absolutely remarkable when you consider that throughout most of history children have had to work just to keep themselves alive. Most people today are so ungrateful. We live in the most prosperous time of mankind and yet Marxists and Socialists keep on going like whinny spoilt little brats.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 26

Original post by Classical Liberal

The problem is the monetary framework. Full reserve banking is the solution for the time being.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Program_for_Monetary_Reform

Did we not explain to you in great detail a few months ago why this is the most retarded idea known to man? I feel sure we did.

Full Reserve Banking, if implemented, would not only completely destroy the economy, but probably the entirety of modern civilisation. If that is your aim, there are quicker more painless ways to do it, such as Nuclear Armageddon for example.

Reply 27

Original post by py0alb

Did we not explain to you in great detail a few months ago why this is the most retarded idea known to man? I feel sure we did.

Full Reserve Banking, if implemented, would not only completely destroy the economy, but probably the entirety of modern civilisation. If that is your aim, there are quicker more painless ways to do it, such as Nuclear Armageddon for example.

No. You said that. And I disagreed.

It is just a transitional problem as far as I am concerned. Full reserve is the obvious way to organise savings and investment.

But yeah if you like the massive unpayable debt monster we have created, and just love ever increasing debt, and ever increasing demand for growth, then go ahead and promote fractional reserve.

Reply 28

Tateco

14

Original post by Classical Liberal

The problem is the monetary framework. Full reserve banking is the solution for the time being.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Program_for_Monetary_Reform

I agree with this.

Reply 29

Original post by Classical Liberal

No. You said that. And I disagreed.

It is just a transitional problem as far as I am concerned. Full reserve is the obvious way to organise savings and investment.

But yeah if you like the massive unpayable debt monster we have created, and just love ever increasing debt, and ever increasing demand for growth, then go ahead and promote fractional reserve.

This isn't something you have the liberty to "disagree" about any more than you can "disagree" with me that 2+2=4. Its not a matter of opinion. Its an undeniable fact.

Full Reserve Banking is a contradiction in terms. Without the fractional reserve system there are no banks, you just have a big safety deposit box.

Reply 30

Original post by Tateco

I agree with this.

Do you know what a "bank" is?

Reply 31

Original post by py0alb

This isn't something you have the liberty to "disagree" about any more than you can "disagree" with me that 2+2=4. Its not a matter of opinion. Its an undeniable fact.

Full Reserve Banking is a contradiction in terms. Without the fractional reserve system there are no banks, you just have a big safety deposit box.

Seriously. Are you trying to be funny or something?

Reply 32

Tateco

14

Original post by py0alb

Do you know what a "bank" is?

I'd love to hear your solution.

The fact you are asking this question shows how narrow minded you are.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 33

Original post by Classical Liberal

Seriously. Are you trying to be funny or something?

No. I'm deadly serious as well you know.

Reply 34

Original post by Tateco

I'd love to hear your solution.

Solution to what, exactly?

Reply 35

funkydee

7

Its all well and good saying we should regulate the financial sector. But our economy is heavy reliant on the financial sector, so why would we limit its potential if we want growth? No-one was complaining before the financial crisis when we were seeing growth.

The cycle of Boom and Bust will always occur, the economy is always changing so one size fits all will never work..

And is government intervention really a good thing in the economy? They're politicians not economists. IMO I think its ridiculous that someone can become a chancellor without even an economics undergraduate degree. (A PhD would be ideal)

Reply 36

Original post by py0alb

Solution to what, exactly?

You are such a conservative.

Reply 37

Original post by Tateco

The fact you are asking this question shows how narrow minded you are.

I am asking a question because I am extremely dubious that you know the answer to it.

Reply 38

Original post by Classical Liberal

You are such a conservative.

Conservative in this context meaning "preferring to avoid destroying civilisation".

Reply 39