Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

noisno

New Members
  • Content Count

    15
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About noisno

  • Rank
    HPC Newbie
  1. Being a non-parliament and non-politics oppostion: no idea. But have they (the Chinese, Indian e.g.) profited? I think not. Ask the starving Indian farmers.
  2. Is it? How hilarous! Mhm. The rich will be taxed more and the middle and poor classes less. Problems? Theft or no theft. Labour doesn't grow like fruit from the trees. This is the main problem.
  3. Thank you, I see. So would these unions, in your opinon, gather strength if the unemployed and the elderly (or sick) people were to become homeless or dependant on the support of their family members?
  4. It's nice of you to wink so kindly (Seriously!) But, anyway, what do multi-national corporations and their control of banks, media and govts have to do with liberty or freedom?
  5. Hello everybody, please do not view me as an enemy. I sure don't think the users here to be an enemy of mine. All I would like to do, is to put my thoughts and everybody else's into some clear form of dialogue and perspective. I must admit, I am sursprised at the number of libertarians here, and I do not agree with them. That is for sure. What do you mean by unions, for a start? Regulations on working conditions and minimum wages are usually seen as "communist" by neoliberals and libertarians. But: if you have this type of laws and invest money into seeing that they are followed (very nanny-state and communist!) then you still do nothing about unemployment. And if the unemployed are going to be homeless or suck their family's blood ... disprove this: This pressure of literally falling outside of society will be so big, that the workers will do anything not to lose their job, their self-respect and their lives. Working conditions will worsen, wages must fall because the companies will exploit this situation in order to archieve pretty numbers. So no public schools? Nothing for the worker, even though husband and wife work all day? Privatize everything, from Kindergarten to university, to the parking lot by the city hospital and the train station? No pension for those who can't afford (!) to save a penny? And all for those who have so much money that they can save and become richer by the minute? You should be marvelling at the ideas put forward by the governments of Europe. That's just what they are plotting to do.
  6. Not at all. If I did, I would probably approve of the Lisbon Treaty and the EU. (As you see, I named myself No is No.) The remarks that you quoted were just (more or less) traditional "social democracy" thoughts. I can also imagine different solutions to the problem. But if you disagree with me, then prove this logically wrong: ----- If you earn 8,00 € an hour and you suddenly lose your job due to recession, old age or illness: and there is no welfare whatsoever, then you either have familiy or friends who will be willing to feed and clothe you - or you will become homeless. This pressure of literally falling outside of society will be so big, that the workers will do anything not to lose their job, their self-respect and their lives. Working conditions will worsen, wages must fall because the companies will exploit this situation in order to archieve pretty numbers. That means that every child born is a human being thown onto an unforgiving and cruel market. A market that will strive to make it as difficult as possible for these people for the sake of profits.
  7. You misunderstood me: we now have a debt crisis. And if we allow corporations and the uber-rich, not to pay taxes - then the crisis will escalate at an incredible speed. If we want our system to stay capitalist, without impoverishing masses of people, then governments should act like a less radical Robin Hood: rob the rich to feed the poor. Yes, the beloved gold standard ... what do you say about this paragraph by Doug Henwood: In myth, the old days were ones of monetary stability, with gold acting as the universal equivalent for all national monetary forms. In fact, the temptation of states to manipulate their currencies — to declare their coins’ purchasing power to be greater than the intrinsic value of their metal — is ancient and nearly irresistible, and the more insulated a country is from FX markets, the less resistible it seems to be. The triumph of the international gold standard was the result of the Enlightenment and the consolidation of British industrial and financial power; the political economists of the 18th and early 19th centuries provided the theory, and the development of capitalist finance provided the impetus from practice. With Sir Isaac Newton as Master of the Mint, Britain set the value of the pound sterling at 123.274 grains of gold at the beginning of the 18th century. That standard was suspended in 1797, because of the financing needs of the Napoleonic Wars. When peace came, creditors’ calls for restoration of the gold standard were resisted by industrialists and landowners. In 1818, the government faced major funding dif ficulties, and was forced to return to the old formula. The ensuing deflation savaged home demand, forcing British industrialists to sear ch abr oad for export markets. The classical gold standard was nowhere near as stable nor as universal as it’s usually painted by metal fetishists. Wild booms alternated with equally wild busts. And while the Bank of England stood at the center of the world gold market, silver prevailed elsewhere, especially in France, which provided Britain with a reservoir of liquidity in tight times. And then there was America, which was constantly disrupting things throughout gold’s heyday. The often imprudent, anarchic American creditsystem helped finance the country’s extraordinary growth, but the system’s indiscipline led to manias and panics in near-equal measure. The Bank of England was often forced to act as a lender of last resort to the U.S., which had no central bank, and often little sense of fiscal management (de Cecco 1992b). Had America been forced by some pre-modern IMF to act according to modern orthodox principles, the U.S. and perhaps even the world would be a poorer place — at least in monetary terms. The U.S. went off gold during the Civil War — war, it seems, is the greatest enemy of financial orthodoxy — and didn’t return until 1879, with most other countries following suit. That began the period of the high classical gold standard, which lasted only until 1914, when it was destr oyed by the outbreak of war — a much shorter reign than the propaganda of modern goldbugs suggests. There were attempts to put it back together between the two world wars, but countries set their currencies’ values (relative to gold) unilaterally, with no sense of how the values fitted together. That system collapsed in the 1930s, and there was no stable global monetary order until after World War II, when the Bretton Woods fixed exchange rate system was established. (Bold letters: mine. From: Wall Street by Doug Henwood: Downloadable for free here: http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/)
  8. I can see various possiblilities for a society, but the libertarian-movement among working people puzzles me. And so your solution is high taxes, - for example, taxes on speculative earnings; and taxes higher for the richest, lower for the poorest; because a millionaire dosn't need a pension, but the pension needs the millionaire. full welfare support leading to unproductivity, - deflation is worst for productivity falling tax receipts, - why would this happen? government borrowing, - preferrably no. Of course, it would be a real revolution, though, if the governments were allowed to print their own money - in a non-inflationary, non-debt way. inflation - I don't have a fixed opinion on inflation. It comes in various forms for a large variety of reasons. and recession - deflation would lead to depression right now. ... but nanny knows best eh? - Hey, a nanny for your kids is better than if they grow up in the streets smuggling drugs or something ...
  9. Much supply = low prices High unemployment = low wages Companies are rational enough to know this, and lobby towards high unemployment. That was exactly the problem in the 70s: high wages, low unemployment. And by raising interest rates and thus causing a recession, the central banks adressed this problem, that is now solved and more and more solved each day. If you earn 8,00 € an hour and you suddenly lose your job due to recession, old age or illness: and there is no welfare whatsoever, then you either have familiy or friends who will be willing to feed and clothe you - or you will become homeless. This pressure of literally falling outside of society will be so big, that the workers will do anything not to lose their job, their self-respect and their lives. Working conditions will worsen, wages must fall because the companies will exploit this situation in order to archieve pretty numbers. That means that every child born is a human being thown onto an unforgiving and cruel market. A market that will strive to make it as difficult as possible for these people for the sake of profits. And from here on it's Russia. Or worse.
  10. We've seen that before: England in the 19th century. When the workers fainted in the factories because they didn't earn enogh to feed themselves and their children.
  11. Well, but let's suppose that most people in Europe are born without property or capital, all they have is their labour. Now, if we abolish the wellfare state then naturally there would be a lot of homeless (because jobs don't create themselves - companies like high unemployment, naturally) and very low wages, bad working conditions. Welfare is supposed to be the floor beneath the floor of low-income salaries. If you take that floor away, low incomes will tumble aswell. If you reduce corporate taxes and taxes on capital, then the debt-crisis (national and private) must turn into a catastrophe very quickly.
  12. Take a trip to St. Petersburg and you will see: the unemployed will become homeless and the elderly poor people aswell. We will have a homeless sleeping in EVERY stairway and old women will stand in the tube station trying to sell self-knitted scarfs. I saw them with tears in their eyes, completely without hope. I wasn't pretty.
  13. Doesn't it feel like the world is falling apart? In normal times ... I seem to have forgotten what normal times feel like. "If only enough people could mount a challenge at the right time and without disorder - a bit like the situation we saw in Ukraine when people just peacefully refused to cooperate and occupied the streets until they got the change they wanted." You aren't talking about the "orange revolution"? Because reliable sources (Ukranian friends) told me that it was a show, paid for by the US. And now with Ukraine and the NATO-business that sounds only too plausible. So actually there is no real proof that "blocking the streets" has ever helped anyone at all. Ghandi and Martin Luther King didn't survive. And if you look at India today - the poor are probably poorer than they ever were. Mumbai has some of the highest house prices in the world, yet it consists of 80% slums! So - yes, thank you, Irland, indeed. But just a side note: Who are the no-campaigners? I'm not talking about the ordinary people that are fed up with the EU and their governments. It's these guys I mean: (Libertas, "low taxes" for whom?)
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.