why can't we let the free market operate and just let the bastards
sink? why do we have to pay our tax money to support the City fat
cats?

MI5.Victim wrote:
>
> why can't we let the free market operate and just let the bastards
> sink? why do we have to pay our tax money to support the City fat
> cats?

Good question. If the damage could be limited to the banks, then it would
be ok to let them sink. Unfortunately, the banks are custodians of
money from personal savers and businesses, they would all sink as well.
When lehman brothers went down, it must have affected dozens of businesses,
but those businesses probably keep quiet about it and suffer in silence...

"johannes" <johs> wrote in message
news:4704
> MI5.Victim wrote:
>>
>> why can't we let the free market operate and just let the bastards
>> sink? why do we have to pay our tax money to support the City fat
>> cats?
>
> Good question. If the damage could be limited to the banks, then it would
> be ok to let them sink. Unfortunately, the banks are custodians of
> money from personal savers and businesses, they would all sink as well.
> When lehman brothers went down, it must have affected dozens of
> businesses,
> but those businesses probably keep quiet about it and suffer in silence...
>
>
But all it's likely to do is delay the recession, and then make it worse
when it happens

Steve Terry

On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 12:52:06 +0100, "Steve Terry" <gFOURwwk>
wrote:

>"johannes" <johs> wrote in message
>news:4704
>> MI5.Victim wrote:
>>>
>>> why can't we let the free market operate and just let the bastards
>>> sink? why do we have to pay our tax money to support the City fat
>>> cats?
>>
>> Good question. If the damage could be limited to the banks, then it would
>> be ok to let them sink. Unfortunately, the banks are custodians of
>> money from personal savers and businesses, they would all sink as well.
>> When lehman brothers went down, it must have affected dozens of
>> businesses,
>> but those businesses probably keep quiet about it and suffer in silence...
>>
>>
>But all it's likely to do is delay the recession, and then make it worse
>when it happens
>
>Steve Terry
>

Well as long as gordon keeps on his mantra of it's global then that's
fine.
People who dare suggest house prices are too high will end up going on
a long walk on the moors.
Actually a rep from some housing organisation today pointed out that
8X average income is too high and traditionally it used to be 3x. I
only saw the item once on the news though so I assume someone has
objected to it.

"mogga" <di> wrote in message
news:4u9h
> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 12:52:06 +0100, "Steve Terry" <gFOURwwk>
> wrote:
>
>>"johannes" <johs> wrote in message
>>news:4704
>>> MI5.Victim wrote:
>>>>
>>>> why can't we let the free market operate and just let the bastards
>>>> sink? why do we have to pay our tax money to support the City fat
>>>> cats?
>>>
>>> Good question. If the damage could be limited to the banks, then it
>>> would
>>> be ok to let them sink. Unfortunately, the banks are custodians of
>>> money from personal savers and businesses, they would all sink as well.
>>> When lehman brothers went down, it must have affected dozens of
>>> businesses,
>>> but those businesses probably keep quiet about it and suffer in
>>> silence...
>>>
>>But all it's likely to do is delay the recession, and then make it worse
>>when it happens
>>Steve Terry
>
> Well as long as gordon keeps on his mantra of it's global then that's
> fine.
> People who dare suggest house prices are too high will end up going on
> a long walk on the moors.
> Actually a rep from some housing organisation today pointed out that
> 8X average income is too high and traditionally it used to be 3x. I
> only saw the item once on the news though so I assume someone has
> objected to it.
>
>
On BBC "This week" Diane Abbott.was trying to tow the above party line,
until Michael Portillo pointed out the French aren't in this situation or in
recession

In fact the French are too busy buying our utilities to worry about such
nonsense.

By law the French aren't allowed to raise power / gas prices by more than
5% PA
So they are rubbing there hands with glee at the prospect of raising UK
prices by whatever they like, with the bonus of UK price increases cross
subsidising the low French increases

But of course the difference is the French have a government that governs
Whereas here the so called "free market" governs the government

Steve Terry

On 2008-09-30, Steve Terry <gFOURwwk> wrote:

> Whereas here the so called "free market" governs the government

Except it doesn't. We have the worst of both worlds.

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 20:39:56 +0100, "Steve Terry" <gFOURwwk>
wrote:


>On BBC "This week" Diane Abbott.was trying to tow the above party line,
>until Michael Portillo pointed out the French aren't in this situation or in
>recession
>
>In fact the French are too busy buying our utilities to worry about such
>nonsense.
>
>By law the French aren't allowed to raise power / gas prices by more than
>5% PA
>So they are rubbing there hands with glee at the prospect of raising UK
>prices by whatever they like, with the bonus of UK price increases cross
>subsidising the low French increases
>
>But of course the difference is the French have a government that governs
>Whereas here the so called "free market" governs the government
>
>Steve Terry
>
>


So how does that work? We're all in the EU and that's what gets the
blame for everything.

> >On BBC "This week" Diane Abbott.was trying to tow the above party line,
> >until Michael Portillo pointed out the French aren't in this situation or in
> >recession

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...5197,24427830-
26040,00.html

October 01, 2008

PRESIDENT Nicolas Sarkozy summoned French bankers to an emergency
meeting last night amid increasingly desperate efforts in Europe to
check the spread of financial market chaos.

"Huge" <Huge> wrote in message
news:1fg1
> On 2008-09-30, Steve Terry <gFOURwwk> wrote:
>
>> Whereas here the so called "free market" governs the government
>
> Except it doesn't. We have the worst of both worlds.
>
>
A few years ago a US economic pundit was asked in a BBC TV
interview what he thought of UK capitalism?

He thought long and hard before replying...
"I don't know what the hell you have here, but it isn't capitalism,
it's some sort of privatised monopolies"?

Steve Terry

On 2008-10-03, Steve Terry <gFOURwwk> wrote:
> "Huge" <Huge> wrote in message
> news:1fg1
>> On 2008-09-30, Steve Terry <gFOURwwk> wrote:
>>
>>> Whereas here the so called "free market" governs the government
>>
>> Except it doesn't. We have the worst of both worlds.
>>
>>
> A few years ago a US economic pundit was asked in a BBC TV
> interview what he thought of UK capitalism?
>
> He thought long and hard before replying...
> "I don't know what the hell you have here, but it isn't capitalism,
> it's some sort of privatised monopolies"?

Not that the USA is much better, mind you.

In article <gc555d$6ci$1>, Hugelid
says...
> On 2008-10-03, Steve Terry <gFOURwwk> wrote:
> > "Huge" <Huge> wrote in message
> > news:1fg1
> >> On 2008-09-30, Steve Terry <gFOURwwk> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Whereas here the so called "free market" governs the government
> >>
> >> Except it doesn't. We have the worst of both worlds.
> >>
> > A few years ago a US economic pundit was asked in a BBC TV
> > interview what he thought of UK capitalism?
> >
> > He thought long and hard before replying...
> > "I don't know what the hell you have here, but it isn't capitalism,
> > it's some sort of privatised monopolies"?
>
> Not that the USA is much better, mind you.
>

Nor is anywhere else.

The problem is the the current consensus amongst economists is bollocks.
The natural tendency of a completely free market is for the most
successful companies to eventually become monopolies. That aspect of the
economy then stagnates. So to have anything resembling a free market that
actually works requires a framework of regulation, which prevents it
being a free market.

So we are constantly presented with ideas built from an economic theory
based on the concept that the ideal is something that is actually
impossible, and that every step closer to that impossible ideal is
inevitably a good thing.

Then when it all falls apart it is apparently all somebody else's fault.
It couldn't possibly be anything to do with the people who actually have
wealth, power, and influence.

Unfortunately I had a scientific education rather than a legal/political
one. So when people come up with a rigourously logical argument that they
then try to bully everyone into accepting, the first thing I do is check
it against the real world.

So. I notice that the government free performance of the Somali economy
over the last few decades has led to it outperforming the rest of Africa,
and I see that the relatively laissez faire US economy has been
consistently out producing the heavily regulated Chinese economy.

Oh sorry, that was Planet Zog. Here on Planet Earth it's pretty clear
that all idealogically blinkered government is crap, and that the only
thing worse is no bloody government at all.

Bing Trotsky <ericjarvis> wrote:

> The problem is the the current consensus amongst economists is bollocks.
> The natural tendency of a completely free market is for the most
> successful companies to eventually become monopolies. That aspect of the
> economy then stagnates. So to have anything resembling a free market that
> actually works requires a framework of regulation, which prevents it
> being a free market.

As happens in the USA from time such as the break-up of AT&T. A "free"
market needs to be less than free, but that doesn't mean it doesn't work
or that it's the worst of possible systems.

Bing Trotsky <ericjarvis> writes:

> The problem is the the current consensus amongst economists is
> bollocks.

There's a consensus amongst economists?

"Carlton Miniott" <davebudd> wrote in message
news:a653
>> >On BBC "This week" Diane Abbott.was trying to tow the above party line,
>> >until Michael Portillo pointed out the French aren't in this situation
>> >or in
>> >recession
>
> http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...5197,24427830-
> 26040,00.html
> October 01, 2008
>
> PRESIDENT Nicolas Sarkozy summoned French bankers to an emergency
> meeting last night amid increasingly desperate efforts in Europe to
> check the spread of financial market chaos.
>
>
But most French banks aren't in the sub prime shit that the US/UK is,
if they are forced into recession by our mess they'll soon recover

Steve Terry

In message <1io8tiv.1x5jx3v33xaewN%%steve%>, Steve Firth
<%steve%> writes
>Bing Trotsky <ericjarvis> wrote:
>
>> The problem is the the current consensus amongst economists is bollocks.
>> The natural tendency of a completely free market is for the most
>> successful companies to eventually become monopolies. That aspect of the
>> economy then stagnates. So to have anything resembling a free market that
>> actually works requires a framework of regulation, which prevents it
>> being a free market.
>
>As happens in the USA from time such as the break-up of AT&T. A "free"
>market needs to be less than free, but that doesn't mean it doesn't work
>or that it's the worst of possible systems.

<http://tinyurl.com/4gv8ux>
<http://s65.photobucket.com/albums/h2...ew&current=ATT
namechange.flv>