Stubble any one?

kabayiri

Personally I have no qualms with Robert Peston. He is paid to do a job and does it to his best ability. If you don't like his writings, there are others even within the BBC website you can read.

We are starting to see pressure from commercial news organisations to make news sites chargeable. If this does happen the BBC website will seem even better value.

nearlynew

It's funny how all of these mainstream journalists suddenly know what's going on and are all experts on economics.


Two years ago, they didn't have a f*cking clue and thought everything was wonderful.

michaels

And this story has updated since I posted it yesterday?

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=2122641

sabretoothtigger

two years northern rock became insolvent, it was mentioned

bernard_shaw

michaels wrote: »

And this story has updated since I posted it yesterday?

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=2122641

Apologies, michaels - missed it.

sabretoothtigger

The dotcom boom was a breakout above and beyond the normal trend where as this rally comes after a fall and is more of a return to a long term average which makes it more confusing

Generali

bernard_shaw wrote: »

...actors must now fully abandon free-market dogma (which is contradictory to the position they now inhabit in any case) and have the balls to actually command the economy.

Every time this has been tried it has created economic chaos and has often led either to genocide, mass starvation or both.

You guys could try it again but I think I'll sit out the experiment somewhere else.

bernard_shaw

Generali wrote: »

Every time this has been tried it has created economic chaos and has often led either to genocide, mass starvation or both.

You guys could try it again but I think I'll sit out the experiment somewhere else.

Did I frighten you?

I did say:
"The political barriers to this are, of course, all but insurmountable" and there you go illustrating this by spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt.

Still, the fact remains that, however distasteful you find it, we now have "a state bank with state capital". We should use it.

Don't misunderstand my position - I'm not driven by any dogma and I don't follow any ideology, but, in answer to the question from Wookster:

How do governments go about trying to encourage cash from speculating in shares (non productive) to innovation and production?

I reckon that directing our state bank and state capital is an eminently sensible and pragmatic course of action. Don't you? And if not, why not?

Generali

bernard_shaw wrote: »

Did I frighten you?

No because you don't have the power (I assume) to put your views into action.

bernard_shaw wrote: »

I reckon that directing our state bank and state capital is an eminently sensible and pragmatic course of action. Don't you? And if not, why not?

No I don't. History shows us that state control of businesses is at best ruinous (eg 1970s UK) or at worst ends in genocide or starvation (eg USSR, PRC, North Korea).

Socialism has failed repeatedly and never succeeded. I'm not sure why anyone would be dumb enough to try it again when it has been shown to be such a massive and comprehensive failure.

bernard_shaw

Generali wrote: »

No because you don't have the power (I assume) to put your views into action.




No I don't. History shows us that state control of businesses is at best ruinous (eg 1970s UK) or at worst ends in genocide or starvation (eg USSR, PRC, North Korea).

Socialism has failed repeatedly and never succeeded. I'm not sure why anyone would be dumb enough to try it again when it has been shown to be such a massive and comprehensive failure.

I can see that you're intent on reading between the lines and jumping to conclusions, so I'll be a bit more specific and see if I can leave no room for you to foam at the mouth raving about genocide.

You should read what I've written carefully before jerking your knees so violently.

Where have I advocated state control of business? I've advocated that the state capital which is already under the control of the nationalised banks be directed away from financial speculation and towards production and innovation.

However much distaste you feel for state capital being lodged in a bank, this is where we find ourselves. To allow the laissez-faire dogma still prevailing within the boards and trading rooms of these (largely state-owned) institutions is clearly a paradoxical contradiction.

To further allow the continued adherents of this dogma and the investment bankers who are it's high-priests to risk these state funds on a further spin of the wheel in what it turns out was actually a casino is clearly reckless - that's my money! (and yours).

Indeed, investing funds in the performance of other funds, exotic derivatives and other financial instruments, while without doubt being a free market, is not capitalism. It is a common enough misapprehension, to mistake markets for capitalism. Capitalism does not require free markets; it merely requires capital to be placed at the disposal of capitalists.

Indeed, that's exactly what I'm proposing, using state funds to invest on commercial terms in innovation and production (that is, capital formation rather than speculation). This is, in fact, capitalism (granted, it's Keynesian in flavour - remember - Keynes was the man who "saved capitalism from itself"). I don't know where you get the idea that it's socialist. Perhaps you can explain to me why you think it is.