We are a socialist state now!!

tomstickland

iamesbo wrote: »

Socialism is the natural state and always has been.
All attempts to get rid of socialism result in disaster, capitalism is an inherently unstable
social system, it cannot work because capitalism destroys the fabric which society is made of.

I think quite the opposite - we are naturally territorial and have always traded. Think of small villages/strongholds trading with neighbouring tribes.

Capitalism hasn't been proved to end in disaster. Excessive lending of money that didn't really exist went horribly wrong due to lack of regulation.

iamesbo

purch wrote: »

Don't expect Mr Misery Guts to accept anything anyone else might say on this or any other subject he decides to moan about...

His mind is already made up....anytime it is anyway close to the truth is purely coincidental.

That's nonsense, what I have said is true, those banks are bust without government intervention. Trying to paint it as some sort of technical adjustment the banks have agreed to do out of their good nature really is scraping the bottom of the barrel of desperation, do you seriously expect anyone to fall for nonsense like that?

iamesbo

tomstickland wrote: »

I think quite the opposite - we are naturally territorial and have always traded. Think of small villages/strongholds trading with neighbouring tribes.

Capitalism hasn't been proved to end in disaster. Excessive lending of money that didn't really exist went horribly wrong due to lack of regulation.

I think you will find they were not buying each others mud huts in some sort of mad pyramid scheme Trading is one thing, crazy capitalsm is another. Capitalism
is all about lack if regulation, it's everyman for himself in a mad free for all.

DocMartin

iamesbo wrote: »

I think you will find they were not buying each others mud huts in some sort of mad pyramid scheme Trading is one thing, crazy capitalsm is another. Capitalism
is all about lack if regulation, it's everyman for himself in a mad free for all.

No it isn't. It's simply the private ownership of the means of production.

We live in a mixed economy because of revolting peasants.

1echidna

iamesbo wrote: »

I think you will find they were not buying each others mud huts in some sort of mad pyramid scheme Trading is one thing, crazy capitalsm is another. Capitalism
is all about lack if regulation, it's everyman for himself in a mad free for all.

I guess it is a case of moderation in all things, not least socialism or capitalism.

chopperharris

Iamesbo

I think your bang on with your historical socio comments , the last resort of a bad arguer is to say your "mind is made" up when its clearly a case of black and white...ie theres not a wrong with cold hard facts , only facts , a shovel is not a surgical tool so why change your mind that it is?

With regard to mud huts and lending , mud huts were communal or self built without a profit loan.The next village may have in some rare cases helped , or at the very least been bartered with , which is recieving something immeadiately for the return for another...but not striclty lending with interest...ie credit.

You are correct that the overall problem today is credit and loans.With overvalue of homes and people living beyond their income , increased cost of living , cherried that particualr cake.

However your not entirely wrong or right on blaming "banks" , some banks arent as technically exposed and wont go bust , unlike those with high level percentage of mortgages as their primary business model.As witnessed by those in america , the ones that went to the wall are primarrily mortgage based.

Take rbs it has trillions in assets , its the 4th biggest bank in the world , and the tenth biggest company or so.It has a relatively low percentage of mortgage lending as its business core.But its being "lightly forced" to restock its books not unlike an icelandic citizens larder just in case.Todays news reckons if they can get recapitalisation from another rights issue , then they wont need govt money at all.Think of rbs as a shop like a proverbial supermarket , its bought plenty of stock so the shelves are full ..... but it needs money to run the shop until it sells of a small percentage of "strong" assets....which it is reluctant to do as a fire sale at a low price.

purch

They have already sacked Andy Hornby from HBOS despite not officially having control

So that was your assertion....that the Government of this Country had sacked Andy Hornby

...and you use this to back up this piece of make believe !!!!

"HBOS chairman Dennis Stevenson and Andy Hornby, at 41 one of the youngest chief executives of a FTSE 100 company, have agreed to stand down once the Lloyds takeover is completed, victims of a strategy that involved excessive lending to the property market"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/3191110/Top-HBOS-duo-ousted-as-Lloyds-pays-less.html

Where does it say anywhere in that article that you are using as proof that HM Government sacked anyone ??

When your mind is already made up you can find anything in a story to back up your prejudices, but anyone with an open mind and a miniscule amount of intelligence normally waits to find actual facts before making wild and outlandish claims