«

[Lulu_Jane]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sebatianos @ Oct 15 2007, 06:51 PM) [snapback]316276[/snapback]</div>

Well the point is of some matter in this case, because the actual communism should be a state controlled regime, where the state always looks out for the best interest for the people. If this would be achieved you'd get a completely controlled market, but the one that in theory would help people. It never happened (and no Stalin was about as far from communism as Hitler was from from exercising Zen Taoism). The closest you got to communism would be the after WW2 years in Britain with the labor party in charge.
[/b]

I agree, a pure communism/socialist state has never truly existed.

Also, the big elephant in the corner is the fact that the majority of communist state officials/organizations descend into corruption, so the good of the people is often forgotten. If anyone can find a good example where this didn't happen, I will eat my hat*

*Nobody bring up China, I know they're trying as of the last few months, but I don't need to eat my hat for awhile at least, although in this case I'd love to

[Tulac]

China is more capitalistic lately, I mean they have their own stock exchange.

[dosraider]

Maybe, just *maybe*, it doesn't matter what system a country is on, maybe it will corrupt in time.

Look around with a critical eye, look at the history of mankind, all systems corrupt.

Even democracy, it seems that the political 'dynasties' establishes themselves, even in a democratic system.

Oh man o man o manometer WTF am I doing in this topic?

* runs away ......

[12turtle12]

America (USA) has had one of the longest-running governments ever (uninterrupted) and is still corrupt, but not to the point where there needs to be a radical change......yet. Founded on Christian principles/religion and mixed with some of the greatest minds of the time, it created one of the most powerful and influential cultures in the history of mankind - but even now the corruption has reached all the way to the highest levels. Even with checks and balances, corrupt men (and women ) will find their way to positions of authority where they can live out their desires for wealth and power.
Evil triumphs when good men do nothing.
Sad but true - and in the case of government, it usually becomes so powerful it is hard to overthrow, especially in the age of technology where the average citizen does not have the resources or organization to combat corruption at the highest levels.

Look at communism. Isn't the goal of communism supposed to be that when everything becomes even-handed, the people in authority hand that authority over to the people, so that the people can distribute wealth/power, and govern themselves? Name one country that has EVER done that.

[STFM]

“It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.� - Winston Churchill

[Lulu_Jane]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dosraider @ Oct 16 2007, 08:17 PM) [snapback]316453[/snapback]</div>

Maybe, just *maybe*, it doesn't matter what system a country is on, maybe it will corrupt in time.

Look around with a critical eye, look at the history of mankind, all systems corrupt.

Even democracy, it seems that the political 'dynasties' establishes themselves, even in a democratic system.

Oh man o man o manometer WTF am I doing in this topic?

* runs away ......
[/b]

This is true. I just think that a communist structure fosters corruption in a way that democracy (in theory) does not.

That said, you're right, it's all open for mucking up.

Offtopic: I love Winston Churchill's little chestnuts. My favourite is "a fanatic is one who won't change his mind and won't change the topic."

[Tulac]

BTW Japofran what do you say about the latest subprime mortgage crisis? Is it not a good evidence that free market can't function by itself, because clearly without the intervention of central banks it would cause much more problems and possibly an economical crisis.

[Japo]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tulac @ Oct 17 2007, 11:10 AM) [snapback]316504[/snapback]</div>

BTW Japofran what do you say about the latest subprime mortgage crisis? Is it not a good evidence that free market can't function by itself, because clearly without the intervention of central banks it would cause much more problems and possibly an economical crisis.[/b]

So you felt like discussing after all, eh? :P Well I'll answer you, but consider these my final words (urgh) on the matter (feel free to counterpost them however, only that I won't answer again here). Besides I'm not that informed about the specific case of the latest so-called "crisis", so this will be more generically about monetary systems, what we already touched in our discussion about the Crash of 1929 in Reloaded.

So, if I didn't get it wrong the problem is that there are a lot of loans that can't be paid. What's the problem? That some of the banks that extended the loans may go bankrupt.

Who acted wrong in the first place? First the customers who got into debt beyond their capacity. And most importantly the banks that granted loans that have been proved too risky, so they should have denied it in the first place.

What would happen if the Federal Reserve (Fed) had looked elsewhere? First as far as the customers go, pretty much nothing. Of course the banks would seize their new houses, but the customers wouldn't have got so expensive ones in the first place if they hadn't found an unwise bank.

Secondly as far as the banks go, if the Fed had done nothing, many of them would have gone bankrupt, even after seizing the houses. (A mortgage loan uses to be profitable for the bank only if the customer pays, a bank loses money every time it has to seize and resell a house.) The banking system wouldn't ruin as a whole despite the commotion, on the contrary it would get healthier after the inept banks get out of business and more sensible banks take their place (some already existing ones, some new ones). This cruel phenomenon of bad business getting out of the way is called competition, and yes it's an integral part of capitalism

So the only beneficiary of the Fed's actions are the banks (considered evil by the lefties as far as I know), and not only that, the inept banks, so the sensible banks are actually comparatively handicapped. Notice that even with Fed action, those inept banks will have to seize the houses all the same since the customers still can't pay.

So, my answer to the question, "does the Fed do any good?", is, "no, on the contrary". Now another question, "do these measures have any undesired effect"? The answer is yes, and there's no doubt about it and the Fed knows it all to well, and this knowledge is the only reason why they aren't "resolving problems" all the time. The effect will be an overall price rise (inflation), and the public will most certainly notice this.

The Fed's solution for this they chose to call "crisis" is the same solution as ever, the only they know, namely printing notes and calling them money. Then they lend that devalued money to the banks in need (not to the good banks but to the bad ones who need it to survive, and who knows if they'll go bankrupt all the same eventually, or need more money after a while). With more supply of money into the system its value goes down (relative to money evething else's value goes up, hence inflation or price rise).

<div align="center"></div>

(Notice that point where the trend in the graphic really goes wild? That's Nixon's presidency. It was Nixon who dealt the final death stroke to the gold standard, which had been mostly discarded before but not completely.)

So let's recapitulate. The only ones benefitting from the Fed's action are the banks. Not just any banks however, only the inept banks that ought to disappear. Competition is impeded. A message is sent that every time some big business get in trouble the Fed will come to the rescue printing notes, even if that harms the whole economy and specially the most humble people. Prices rise and that's bad for everyone but the ones who will suffer it most dearly will be the humble people who will be further strained to purchase the basics.

No problem about the humble people, let's take them out of the productive system and turn the into professional beggars living on government subsidies, they'll be grateful. Okay but where do we get money for that? No problem, we can print notes and call them money. Yay. Etcetera.

[chumloofah]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("cazgotsaved")</div>

America (USA) has had one of the longest-running governments ever (uninterrupted) and is still corrupt, but not to the point where there needs to be a radical change......yet.[/b]

Pretty sure at least one of them founding fathers (george washington, i think) said he didn't want no god damn party politics.
It pretty much undermines the selling points of democracy to the point where we're all forced to vote for one or other powerful organisation that can do whatever the hell it likes once it's in.
Whoopee!

[12turtle12]

If there was a viable 3rd party at the moment, I would definitely "throw my vote away" on it - I'm sick of immoral dems and greedy reps

edit - this what you're talking about?
http://blag.xkcd.com/2007/01/29/washington...the-vernacular/