The Bankers (71)

The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.

I think this problem is much wider than Party politics - either in this country or abroad . The central problem is this . The international finance system is beyond democtratic control . Elites all over the world have been bought off .

" Yeah . Well I love my cigar but I take it out once in a while " Groucho Marx

Maybe, but I think you're over-estimating the power of money and capital. I mean the Pope is worth less than Bill Gates, but he has more power. When assorted banks shut down the Wikileaks accounts there was less than $50k to the organisations name, yet that same organisation has done incredible things. Wikipedia again, one of the most popular and useful websites on the planet, run for free. At the risk of sounding like a bit of a Marxist, it's work that has value, money is just bits of paper, or numbers in a computer. It's work that makes the world go round, not money. If you can command the efforts of people, you are much more powerful than if you've just got a wedge of cash, and sure, money is a motivation for some, but it's not that good.

And you could equally argue that the money men didn't want the economy to collapse, some might argue they did, but either way they couldn't stop it.

The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.

But the fact remains that democratically elected governments have been unable to do anything about bank bonuses . In broad terms if any government takes on big business the business will be moved to another country . Look what happened to Kevin Rudd the Australian PM when he proposed a tax on mining companies . He was replaced in a coup . Since I started this thread the Liberal Democrat economics spokesman Lord Oakeshott criticised the latest deal with the bank . He was out on his ear within the hour .

" Yeah . Well I love my cigar but I take it out once in a while " Groucho Marx

The only long term solution is attitude change. Serious, long term and wide spread. I don't know if it is possible, it certainly won't happen fast, but it is the only thing that will really address the problems of divisions and inequality in society in any meaningful way.

Only when people don't value work by its financial results, but by effort put in, so no one is paid dozens or hundreds of times more than others will we address the problems that have led to the banking crisis. When people can be content with a comfortable life style and not feel the need to have excessive wealth and luxury. When people aren't measured by their excessive lifestyle, and respected for it, rather than what they actually do to contribute to the well being of others.

The attitudes behind all of these things are what leads us to a position where banks can have such power, and where their opinions are considered worthy enough that they are allowed to get away with what they do. hose attitudes percolate through most of society, in their own petty way, and they have to change from the bottom up before we can tackle these issues.

When we can say to the very rich that we will tax excessive pay at punitive rates, and in response to those who say they will leave the country we can all simply say good riddance, we will be starting to move in the right direction. It might be painful economically in the short term, but in the long term it is likely to lead to a sounder, fitter economy that will make everyone in it better off and happier.

All I ask is a tall ship and a star to steer her by.

http://empressm7.uboot.com/ Vampire pro/lifestyle ts dom and switch. Age play mummy/aunty/AB ,medical play,domestic, energy and outdoor specialist. "Beyond the government,above the police ."

Edited 10 Feb 11, 5:02 AM by Empress_Martine

Only by changing the system can we hope to address the massive inequaliites in our society and prevent a social breakdown.

As long as we place the accumulation of wealth higher than the improvement of society and reducing inequalities then we are doomed to fail.

M Thatcher said there is no society, but in fact there is as Adam Smith pointed out all of us live on the work and efforts of many others. None of us no matter how wealthy would be able to feed cloth or warm ourselves without the efforts of thousands of other people. Those other people are society and we need each other to be the best that we can be to add to society.

"Fork handles?" "No, not 'fork handles' ... four candles."

Edited 10 Feb 11, 8:25 AM by Top_Class

It always was. It was never more than a sop for a certain portion of the electorate, put about by politicians who, as usual, can't think more than a soundbite ahead. Of course, it didn't help that the Government turns out to have been negotiating in bad faith.

Absolutely not. Who would want to crucify their economy by pinning their currency to something as volatile as the gold price? I notice that Wikipedia diplomatically neglects to mention that what finally forced the US off of the gold standard was when the hard-up UK one day demanded to exchange all its dollar reserves for gold, at a time when the artificially pegged dollar bought almost twice as much gold as its "natural" value. That's hardly a recipe for stability

Yes. Wonderful isn't it? Because if it hadn't, we'd have no means to pay for international trade. Amongst other things, you wouldn't have all that cheap electronics and clothing in Asda. It's just another of those things in life where the people who most reckon it's a bad thing are generally the same people who have benefited most.

Well, that's obviously not true. All you have to do is earn the right to tell the banks what to do by becoming rich enough to buy 51% of their equity, and turn up to the AGM. Just think of it as Nature's way of preventing any old Tom Dick or Harry forcing ill-considered policies on them in return for a handful of votes in a marginal seat.