Entry 863, on 2008-10-01 at 19:58:23 (Rating 4, Politics)
I've often observed in the past that the world economic system is totally idiotic. We have people working for finance companies whose main skill is their greed and who just shuffle pieces of paper around representing nothing of any value to other greedy people representing greedy organisations who make no real contribution to the good of the majority and who are rewarded with huge salaries for creating short term profit which lead to no long term advantage. Wow that was a good rant!
Well the stupidity of the system has been revealed for what it really is with the financial disaster currently happening in the US. The geniuses (not) running the financial and banking sector have been exposed for the idiots they are and now the whole economic system needs to be rescued by the American government. The first attempt has unexpectedly failed but I guess they will try again. And its not cheap. According to some sources it was going to cost about US$1.8 trillion which would be borrowed from foreign banks. This really doesn't sound like a good idea!
After the deal failed each of the US parties are blaming the other. A poll on the NZ Herald web site this morning showed people aren't fooled though: it showed over half blame business instead of politicians or economic cycles.
Its not really the politicians at fault here, it is business. I have said this before and I will repeat it here: capitalism, business, and free markets are OK for things that don't really matter but its suicide allowing them to have free rein over the financial system which we unfortunately rely on to control most of the operation of the world.
So am I advocating a state controlled, communist style, socialism? Of course not. Moving from one extreme where private enterprise has all the control to another where the central government has all the control is not the answer. I just want stronger regulations and an end to the stupid deals which go on which are really nothing much more than gambling on a big scale with other people's money.
I've started to notice a trend...anything you don't understand you start to use the terms "idiotic" and "stupid", like somehow your subconscious kicks in with crude words to overcompensate for the fact you don't know what you're talking about.
At least this time you make an effort to offer a solution. However if you had done some research you would see that "stronger regulations" are part of the problem, not the solution.
Oh, and as for "A poll on the NZ Herald web site this morning showed people aren't fooled though" - I didn't realise you were such a fan of believing the majority. So since the unscientific NZ Herald poll shows over half blame business, then it must be true right? Is that your empirical evidence? Is that OJB looking at logic and reason?
Comment 2 by OJB on 2008-10-02 at 11:18:50:
Interesting theory regarding the abusive terms. I don't know whether you are really right though. I admit my knowledge of economics isn't great, but my knowledge of computers is and I use abusive terms in that context as well.
What the cause of the problem is depends very much on your political beliefs. The left blames the right, the right blames the left. The fact is that if there were regulations stopping banks and other financial institutions handing out inappropriate loans then this mess would never have occurred.
I quoted the Herald poll to show what people were thinking, not really to suggest that they were right.
Comment 3 by SBFL on 2008-10-02 at 13:04:56:
That's your problem - its all political for some people. They let politics get in the way of facts, reason and logic. Try and look at the economics, not the politics. And as you will now be aware it was regulations encouraging inappropriate loans in order to house the less well off. Right intentions, but...oh dear. We have had something similar here in NZ recently haven't we? The government assisted home purchasing scheme - what is it's name? I forget.
I love how you come out with all gusto in the post and then offer a different meaning from what was obvious in the post when challenged.
Comment 4 by OJB on 2008-10-02 at 14:48:59:
If you choose to misinterpret my original post and I correct you that doesn't seem to be a case of me changing the meaning. On the other hand I am prepared to change my mind if you show me sufficiently good evidence, but one-sided opinions from the right aren't what I call good evidence.
Comment 5 by SBFL on 2008-10-02 at 15:36:31:
When you write an opinion piece, it usually follows that the contents are that of your opinion. If there is a bit your want to discuss that isn't of your view, one would normally state so. When you fail to do this, then it isn't obvious, hence my comment. When you start with the word "I" what more can one reasonably expect! ;-)
Comment 6 by OJB on 2008-10-02 at 19:13:34:
Well I still think the world economic system is idiotic and I think we could do so much better if most of the world's money wasn't controlled by greedy business people. I'm not sure if you got the impression I was backing down from that opinion. If you did, I'm not.
You can leave comments about this using this form.
Enter name, email (optional), enter number, comment, click Add. You can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies. Comment should appear immediately (authorisation is inactive).
BLOG PAGE