Socialism fails again. This time in South America.

[I1L2T3]

There was a lot of regulation. The book of regulations would have been hard to lift.

There were 2 big problems. 1. Capital ratios. The banks were allowed to become over-leveraged. 2. The state in the UK and US actively encouraged the banks to give mortgages to people who would not normally qualify.

When problem 2 exploded, the banks were unable to cope because of problem 1.

 

The bail-out was unnecessary. The states could have bailed out depositors and let the weak banks fail.

 

---------- Post added 09-12-2015 at 18:37 ----------

 

 

If true socialism means that everything is collectivised, then true capitalism means that nothing is.

 

An absence of government is anarchy. If everything is privately owned you have anarcho-capitalism.

 

You're just a mild anarcho-capitalist I reckon.

 

If I'm a mild socialist that is

[unbeliever]

An absence of government is anarchy. If everything is privately owned you have anarcho-capitalism.

 

You're just a mild anarcho-capitalist I reckon.

 

If I'm a mild socialist that is

 

I would agree with that.

[Bob Arctor]

There was a lot of regulation. The book of regulations would have been hard to lift.

There were 2 big problems. 1. Capital ratios. The banks were allowed to become over-leveraged. 2. The state in the UK and US actively encouraged the banks to give mortgages to people who would not normally qualify.

When problem 2 exploded, the banks were unable to cope because of problem 1.

 

The bail-out was unnecessary. The states could have bailed out depositors and let the weak banks fail.

 

---------- Post added 09-12-2015 at 18:37 ----------

 

 

If true socialism means that everything is collectivised, then true capitalism means that nothing is.

 

What could have prevented over-leveraging other than regulation? The problem is that the world of Finance is psychopathic; it cares about profit and nothing else. Regulators are always playing catch-up, and the reason they didn't regulate the securities markets properly was that they didn't understand them because they had become so complex.

 

You are right that the free market wet dream is no regulation at all but that doesn't mean that the presence of regulation stops an economy being capitalist. Nearly all economies are primarily capitalist, they have differing degrees of regulation is all.

 

---------- Post added 09-12-2015 at 19:30 ----------

 

An absence of government is anarchy. If everything is privately owned you have anarcho-capitalism.

 

You're just a mild anarcho-capitalist I reckon.

 

If I'm a mild socialist that is

 

Anarchism is collective self-government rather than total lack of government.

[unbeliever]

What could have prevented over-leveraging other than regulation? The problem is that the world of Finance is psychopathic; it cares about profit and nothing else. Regulators are always playing catch-up, and the reason they didn't regulate the securities markets properly was that they didn't understand them because they had become so complex.

 

You are right that the free market wet dream is no regulation at all but that doesn't mean that the presence of regulation stops an economy being capitalist. Nearly all economies are primarily capitalist, they have differing degrees of regulation is all.

 

Nothing. I never advocated an absence of regulation. Nor to be fair did the conservatives.

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Politics/documents/2007/08/17/ECPGcomplete.pdf

 

It's a long document I'm afraid. It's from 2007 and whilst it does go in for de-regulation in general, it specifically warns that capital ratios of the time are too low and the banks are over-leveraged.

 

I have to disagree with your last paragraph. If socialism is only socialism when it's pure, then capitalism is only capitalism when it's pure.

 

In western states, all businesses are semi-collectivised. The state takes a cut of the profits and provides services on which the businesses depend which are free at the point of use. The most obvious example being transport infrastructure. So I could just as easily make a case that all states are socialist in the same was as you have that they're all capitalist.

 

It reality (rather than abstract theory), when governments start taking over entire industries, that's socialism.

Edited December 9, 2015 by unbeliever

[Bob Arctor]

Nothing. I never advocated an absence of regulation. Nor to be fair did the conservatives.

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Politics/documents/2007/08/17/ECPGcomplete.pdf

 

It's a long document I'm afraid. It's from 2007 and whilst it does go in for de-regulation in general, it specifically warns that capital ratios of the time are too low and the banks are over-leveraged.

 

I have to disagree with your last paragraph. If socialism is only socialism when it's pure, then capitalism is only capitalism when it's pure.

 

In western states, all businesses are semi-collectivised. The state takes a cut of the profits and provides services on which the businesses depend which are free at the point of use. The most obvious example being transport infrastructure. So I could just as easily make a case that all states are socialist in the same was as you have that they're all capitalist.

 

It reality (rather than abstract theory), when governments start taking over entire industries, that's socialism.

 

Some stuff to think about, thanks

[I1L2T3]

Anarchism is collective self-government rather than total lack of government.

 

Very true.

 

---------- Post added 09-12-2015 at 20:28 ----------

 

I would agree with that.

 

It's easier to just say you're on the left or the right to be honest. Then there is no need for meaningless and pejorative labeling of others.

 

In reality the concept of somebody being a capitalist or a socialist are about 150 years out of date, in the UK at least.

Edited December 9, 2015 by I1L2T3

[unbeliever]

Very true.

 

---------- Post added 09-12-2015 at 20:28 ----------

 

 

It's easier to just say you're on the left or the right to be honest. Then there is no need for meaningless and pejorative labeling of others.

 

In reality the concept of somebody being a capitalist or a socialist are about 150 years out of date.

 

To be right implies not to be liberal. I'm liberal. I'm not nationalistic, and I hate it when individuals are judged by their creed or race or personal life rather than their actions. I'm also for reducing the role of the state in the economy. Am I right or left?

 

Right and left bundle too many ideas together.

 

Most importantly, as I keep saying, when the term "far right" is no longer used for radical socialists who also happen to be illiberal, nationalistic, bigoted or some combination thereof, then I'll consider using the right/left terminology. Not before.

Edited December 9, 2015 by unbeliever

[I1L2T3]

To be right implies not to be liberal. I'm liberal. I'm also for reducing the role of the state in the economy. Am I right or left?

 

Right and left bundle too many ideas together.

 

Most importantly, as I keep saying, when the term "far right" is no longer used for radical socialists who also happen to be illiberal, nationalistic, bigoted or some combination thereof, then I'll consider using the right/left terminology. Not before.

 

These radical socialists on the right? You mean the BNP and their ilk I guess?

 

Look, they probably got less votes in the 2015 election than the Raving Loonies. Don't let a minority party shunned by virtually the entire electorate skew your entire view of the UK political system. Doesn't make sense unless you have some kind of agenda.

[unbeliever]

These radical socialists on the right? You mean the BNP and their ilk I guess?

 

Look, they probably got less votes in the 2015 election than the Raving Loonies. Don't let a minority party shunned by virtually the entire electorate skew your entire view of the UK political system. Doesn't make sense unless you have some kind of agenda.

 

traditional or progressive?

authoritarian or libertarian?

smaller or bigger role for government?

nationalist or internationalist?

 

A person may fall on either side of each of these big questions.

There are probably more that I haven't thought of.

To classify somebody as right or left is intolerably crude.

[I1L2T3]

traditional or progressive?

authoritarian or libertarian?

smaller or bigger role for government?

nationalist or internationalist?

 

A person may fall on either side of each of these big questions.

There are probably more that I haven't thought of.

To classify somebody as right or left is intolerably crude.

 

Actually, it's beautifully simple but only if you can escape from the idea that it's a simplistic case of left vs right (or socialist vs capitalist) and consider things in terms of a political spectrum. Even within each party you have a political spectrum.

 

As for your far-right socialists, the obvious thing to understand is what came first. What came first was the bigotry, nationalism, racism. Any other policies are not serious, not well-formed and just intended to add a veneer of respectability to a core agenda that any serious person would place firmly on the right of the political spectrum.