As i said. Bakunin?
How Bad Do You Think it Will Get?
- Thread starter soulman
- Start date
Bakunin
I am Noodle's bitch.
You still haven't answered my question.
I'm too busy writing 'The perils of attending demo's by coach' at the mo
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
aka the ' i'm brian and so is my wife' demo
How bad will it get? Well, there'll be a proper Tory govt in power by June 2010. As for the rest of it? As bad as the 1930s for some, but not enough that it causes a revolution...
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
How bad will it get? Well, there'll be a proper Tory govt in power by June 2010. As for the rest of it? As bad as the 1930s for some, but not enough that it causes a revolution...
you never know...
but srsly perhaps the crises and position of opposition will force new labour to drop the new and signal a return to old labour values.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
If there's any real chance of change the whole current institutional structure of the 'left' needs to re-start from scratch - it's based around 150+ year old structures, which are in turn based around the structure that capitalism allows (party & union, both of which recreate hierarchies, bureaucracies and inter and intra-group sectarianism). Even this talk of 'old labour' values is questionable - is effectively paying to keep people from even attempting to develop their lives an 'old labour' value? I'd suggest that the notions of deserving and underserving poor are national values, and that the notion of universal, unconditional welfare provision is not one that's generally widespread in the UK.
intersting point however it is hard to see there being any old labour left especially when the party is fulll of career worms straight from uni into westminister- visit the fabian society and see for yourself about how interns go on to become politicians and the like yknow reallly diverse backgrounds they come from
emily benn my arse
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
Some Labour politicians do give good rhetoric, but crucially they seem to undergo a complete stripping of values when they get to the front bench.
Career politicians are scum.
Career politicians are scum.
Bakunin
I am Noodle's bitch.
Always remember the golden rule of the career politician, young Padawan:
'If you don't like my strongly-held principles, I have others.'
But the taxpayers, via the government, gave them the money. It's a fucking big coup for the bankers. The money the government have thrown at them too is a huge amount. Almost the entire amount that a whole nation can earn in one year.
It's totally unbelievable. The banks have effectively stolen a whole year's wage off the whole nation.
And they've been humbled??!!
You're being conned mate, if that's what you think.
Does that mean you still have some kind of hope or expectation that the democratic process still exists??
Sorry mate, it went years ago.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
It's not unbelievable it's pragmatic neoliberalism in practise.
And if by humbled we mean 'shown up as the bad gamblers they are' then they have been.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
He's taking the piss. Google "2012" and "Aztec calendar".
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
The main thing that's happened to the banks is that the new mythology they've built up around themselves and their activities for the last generation has been utterly destroyed at all levels - be that their self-image as 'masters of the universe' and infinitely adaptable ubermensch, or the image of the whole banking industry as innovative, glamourous, capable of regulating itself etc. It's all gone, and it won't return - just as their previous image pre-1970s was of conservative, old world, gentleman amateur old-boys didn't survive the 1970s.
kabbes
First intersubjective, then internalised
So how come the government is throwing such huge sums of money at them then? How come they've not had to be accountable?
How come they just get what they want?? How come the taxpayer is copping it all then mate?
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
The image of bankers and banking for the last 30 years has probably been closer to how it was seen right at the start of the various stock exchanges, before the first big round of frauds/bubbles - which directly led to the self-mythologising of banking as being run by honourable men, word as bond and all that aristocratic, gentleman amateur nonsense, whereby anyone offering 'exotic' investments could be labelled a cad, scoundrel etc and easily isolated from the herd.
Don't succumb to hope man, that's exactly what they want. You'll get absolutely fuck all out of hope.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Go learn some economics about why the banking system completely collapsing would be a Bad Thing, and also try and learn something about what the bailouts actually are, what they mean long term for the banks etc rather than spouting your usual uninformed bollocks.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Well, if you think that minimal liquidity, shareholder ruination, the collapse of a business model and the spectre of deep oversight by government is "doing very nicely", then you'd be right.
Except that, as the final arbiters of regulation, it is.
Since from this post it appears you know all about the banking system, can you please explain why the government are bailing them out to the tune of virtually the whole year's worth of earnings of the whole population?
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
No fela, you can go and find all that stuff out for yourself. I'd also suggest you find out what the 'bailout' actuall consists of.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
2012 is as good a date as any for the trough of the depression to be reached. If we look at previous depressions, they generally tended to have "lead-in" periods of 2-5 years. We could, of course, have a few "false dawns" before then, or none at all. We won't know, because at present we still don't know the full extent of indebtedness and/or liability incurred by our financial institutions.
No, kyser, i've already found it out thanks mate.
And the sheer amount of taxpayers' money that is going towards bailing out the banks is unreal.
Robbers: banks, police, MPs, big business.
Save us all from the fucking criminals...
You might not know, but they do.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
If a modern bank (as opposed to a bank of "great depression" vintage) is allowed to go bust, the effect is utterly unlike 80 years ago, because of the globally-interconnected nature of modern finance. Whereas a depression-era bank's bankruptcy generally affected the local and regional economy (with a few exceptions) of it's nation-state, the failure of modern banks will have a "domino effect" on other financial institutions as well as having the usual local and regional "first order" effects of foreclosure, savings loss and job loss, and "second order" effects such as business failure.
For most countries rigging "bail-out" packages, it may well be both financially and socially cheaper long-term to nationalise or part nationalise banks to keep them running (and therefore prevent mass foreclosures and the downward economic and value spiral that would trigger) than to take a laissez faire approach of "sink or swim".
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
VP - there's little point, fela's already made his mind up so any mechanical explanations of why the banks couldn't be allowed to go to the wall are to no avail.
See, this shows how little you understand the current sitaution - no one knows what the potential liabilities are globally.
See, this shows how little you understand the current sitaution - no one knows what the potential liabilities are globally.
Similar threads
- Poll
