Crises Of Capitalism

[okaycuckoo]

Now, that is my area. The speaker (a geographer) makes two crucial mistakes:

1st: The current crisis IS a market correction, despite and against governments interferences in the past (inflating the bubble with monetary policies too loose) and current attempts to stop it bursting (idem). Nobody ever said that market corrections are smooth, caring things. But at least they correct the market. Unlike in North Korea.

2nd: Marxist prediction of the end of capitalism is only for after capitalism develops the entire globe: "The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilisation." ("Manifesto of the Communist Party, Chapter I. Bourgeois and Proletarians, http://www.marxists....o/ch01.htm#007)

( Absurdly rude and disgusting language Karl, even for the XIX century. :angry: ) Anyway, we still have to develop South-East Asia, Africa, and Central Asia. It will take a century for that.

I would appreciate if geographers could refrain from trying to lecture on Global Political Economy and/or Political Philosophy. Of course he/they/anybody can have an opinion, as any citizen/subject can, but not pose as a "specialist", when he is not.

Like Professor Blanchflower, a qualified teacher, posing as an Economist.

Proper qualifications people! For goodness sake!

.

Hmmm. Did you follow the outrage generated in the blogosphere by the Fed economist who basically told anyone without a PhD in economics from a good school to shut up about the financial crisis?

[domo]

Fortunately the structure of logic does not alter depending on what qualifications one has.

"Your wrong because I have a PHD" I don't think so.

[babesagainstmachines]

Have any of you got typing qualifications?

[Traktion]

Very interesting.

Though as ever the gripe is not with "capitalism" so much as with "corporatism" which is the current system we run.

In the end though we should have let the banks and the financiers go bankrupt. Pity the Govt didn't have the balls to do that.

Exactly!

The video makes a lot of sense, but it reminds me of the Micheal Moore film - lots of good messages, but the finger of blame ends up pointing in slightly the wrong direction.

IMO, much of this crisis is about misallocation of risk* - the banks had little risk and lots of profit. The rest of us (taxpayers) took their risk and gave them their profits. While ever we have a banking system which can't fall on its own sword without causing systemic risk, the economy will continue to fail us in this way.

It is bad enough having corporatism in industry, but corporatism in the financial sector is truly devastating. Risk should be directly appropriated to investors, to stop the middlemen (bankers) gambling, then holding us all for ransom when they screw up.

Of course it isn't easy politically to do this, as the VIs are very powerful. As the man in the video says, the problem keeps just getting passed around, as we (as a population) are too weak/uneducated to do anything about it. If we don't address the problems though, we will keep being ground into the dirt.

*With the other part being the monopolising of an important asset class - land.

EDIT: P.S. Notice that the focus is on getting the most 'growth' out of us. Surely that is one of the biggest flaws of the central planners of all. Why can't they leave us be, letting us work as hard as we feel we want to? Why are we all being worked to death in the first place, when all we need is a roof over our heads, food and clothing? Sure, we may work for other things, but we're pretty much forced to these days - all hail the mighty growth!

Edited July 2, 2010 by Traktion

[Traktion]

Have any of you got typing qualifications?

I self-learnt to touch type in Dvorak, if that counts?

[Tired of Waiting]

Hmmm. Did you follow the outrage generated in the blogosphere by the Fed economist who basically told anyone without a PhD in economics from a good school to shut up about the financial crisis?

No, I didn't hear about that.

I think everybody has the right to their opinion, of course, like I wrote above. This is a basic democratic principle.

My problem is with many in academia that use their title (here "professor"), to imply a specialised knowledge in another area, where they have none. This is becoming very common nowadays. It doesn't affect much the intellectual debate, but it misleads less well informed readers, or in this case, YouTube viewers. It is actually a con. And in such an important issue, it is dangerous. Remember North Korea after all.

.

Edited July 2, 2010 by Tired of Waiting

[huw]

Though as ever the gripe is not with "capitalism" so much as with "corporatism" which is the current system we run.

In the end though we should have let the banks and the financiers go bankrupt. Pity the Govt didn't have the balls to do that.

ISTM that bonus-troughing employees, and uninsured creditors, were the ones who really got bailed out. The owners of failed/distressed banks were left with little or no value. In the case of Lloyds, they actively got scalped.

So for me, the important issues are (1) Mercantilism masquerading as free trade, that allowed "too big to fail; too big to repay" levels of debt to build up and (2) capture of corporations by certain of their employees, as opposed to their shareholders.

Anyway, I thought it was an excellent presentation.

(typo)

Edited July 2, 2010 by huw

[R K]

No, I didn't hear about that.

I think everybody has the right to their opinion, of course, like I wrote above. This is a basic democratic principle.

My problem is with many in academia that use their title (here "professor"), to imply a specialised knowledge in another area, where they have none. This is becoming very common nowadays. It doesn't affect much the intellectual debate, but it misleads less well informed readers, or in this case, YouTube viewers. It is actually a con. And in such an important issue, it is dangerous. Remember North Korea after all.

.

you don't think spending 40 years studying the text might make him an expert in that particular text?

Which is after all, all he claims to.

have you studied that text for 40 years?

[RufflesTheGuineaPig]

Germany and the UK were in a similar state after WWII. I think that Germany has done better than the USA since WWII while we have done worse.

The country will all the money and IOUs tickets and industrial capacity chose to help the UK and Germany recover, while actively trying to prevent the USSR from recovering.

Given what they were up against, the russians did well just to have electricity.

[erranta]

<br /><i>Exactly!</i><br /><br />The video makes a lot of sense, but it reminds me of the Micheal Moore film - lots of good messages, but the finger of blame ends up pointing in slightly the wrong direction.<br /><br />IMO, much of this crisis is about misallocation of risk* - the banks had little risk and lots of profit. The rest of us (taxpayers) took their risk and gave them their profits. While ever we have a banking system which can't fall on its own sword without causing systemic risk, the economy will continue to fail us in this way.<br /><br />It is bad enough having corporatism in industry, but corporatism in the financial sector is truly devastating. Risk should be directly appropriated to investors, to stop the middlemen (bankers) gambling, then holding us all for ransom when they screw up.<br /><br />Of course it isn't easy politically to do this, as the VIs are very powerful. As the man in the video says, the problem keeps just getting passed around, as we (as a population) are too weak/uneducated to do anything about it. If we don't address the problems though, we will keep being ground into the dirt.<br /><br />*With the other part being the monopolising of an important asset class - land.<br /><br />EDIT: P.S. Notice that the focus is on getting the most 'growth' out of us. Surely that is one of the biggest flaws of the central planners of all. Why can't they leave us be, letting us work as hard as we feel we want to? Why are we all being worked to death in the first place, when all we <i>need</i> is a roof over our heads, food and clothing? Sure, we may work for other things, but we're pretty much forced to these days - all hail the mighty growth! <img src='http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/public/style_emoticons/default/dry.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='<_<' /><br />

<br /><br /><br />

Synagogue Of Satan = S.O.S. = 9/11 = oCCult 'Trio' of Towers brought down = Manhattan/Bankers Headquarters = HEATH_ens!

[wonderpup]

My problem is with many in academia that use their title (here "professor"), to imply a specialised knowledge in another area, where they have none. This is becoming very common nowadays. It doesn't affect much the intellectual debate, but it misleads less well informed readers, or in this case, YouTube viewers. It is actually a con. And in such an important issue, it is dangerous. Remember North Korea after all.

A more serious issue for me is the fact that so many supposedly objective academics are little more than paid shills for whoever funds the 'think tank', foundation or institution that employs them. The reason so many economists seem to have missed the crisis coming is because they had real incentives to keep silent, being mostly funded by those who were benefiting from the current status quo.

Edited July 2, 2010 by wonderpup

[Tired of Waiting]

(...)

I somewhat doubt they trump Harvey who is a highly regarded academic.

In geography? No, of course not.

In the field he is talking about in that YouTibe video? Yes.

I don't think much of the supposed "errors" you identify in his analysis.

Fair enough. We can all have our own opinions.

[erranta]

<br />A more serious issue for me is the fact that so many supposedly objective academics are little more than paid shills for whoever funds the 'think tank', foundation or institution that employs them. The reason so many economists seem to have missed the crisis coming is because they had real incentives to keep silent, being mostly funded by those who were benefiting from the current status quo.<br />

<br /><br /><br />

Gordons Browns most faithful aide (right hand woman, whom he recently gave a pEErage) who worked tirelessly for him for over 13 years (without asking for ANY pay) turns out to be the wife of a ex Goldman Sachs Director!

Was she - or wasn't she?

[dissident junk]

]

I am sorry, but I think that video is just not good enough at all. It is typical of the surface-level thinking of so many Western intellectuals these days; no wonder the economic economic crisis hit them all out of the blue (it does feel very much like Michael Moore documentary).

I disagree with his analysis of the problem and the way he explains the issue -- it's almost propaganda in some sense, and advocates "a new social order" (whenever I read that phrase, I get suspicious -- "new social orders" tend to feature innocent people getting shot). To my mind, he simply doesn't grasp what the problem is at root, even when clues are right in front of his face. He appears to be well-informed but is actually about two strata away from the core, and it is his narrow Marxist thinking that is stopping him moving closer (if he delved right back to Marx's basic principles, he might actually move forward).

His fundamental mistake is that he views this crisis through the accumulated muck stuck to the lenses of 19th century Western industrial capitalism critiques, when the reality is that we now live in a hybrid weave of Western post-industrial developed countries, Eastern developing state capitalist industrial countries, and politically unstable developing countries with natural resources that face waves of imperialism, where the providers of financial capital hail from all manner of socio-economic groups (state and private) and that capital flies all over the world.

In short, he is trying to explain why a flat screen LCD TV is on the blink by using a manual for an analogue Grundig from the 1950s.

The real issue, at heart, is not the existence of "capital" or "excess capital" per se (I presume he means financial capital), nor the repression of labour, nor systemic risk, but the behaviour of entities, plugged deep into the economic system, that can control significant financial capital flows and siphon out financial capital in the process, directing it to unproductive destinations instead of productive ones, and whom also siphon off capital returns when they are heading back to the owners of the original capital and also, in the process, then ensure that rewards for actual productive labour decrease on a perpetual basis.

In short, it is not capitalism per se that is the problem, it is the entities that influence, direct and misdirect where capital goes that are the real problem -- the parasites that feed off capital flows, and invent new and more complex ways to feed off it, using mirrors and sleights of hand to hide their tracks (and these entities are not necessarily "financiers" either).

He goes back to the 1970s, when he should really be looking at what happened at the end of the last age of globalisation: ie. capital and the economy prior to the first world war, then what happened after it, and then through looking at the events of the 1920s leading up to the Great Crash and the ensuing depression.

As with most modern narrow Marxists, he falls into the "capitalist = silk top-hatted billionaire monopolist who eats babies" trap. This sort of thinking will destroy the global economy if it takes root and influences policy. He seems to fail to understand that the providers of capital aren't necessarily a bunch of rich folk with family wealth who decide to invest in a factory when drinking Cognac down their club (his silk hat trope), but can be the accumulated pension savings of thousands of, say, average wage workers (who simply cannot afford to see the value of their labour decrease anymore than at present).

The problem is that we now can't get rid of the parasites because the parasites have gained so much control over the system that if we lever them off, the whole thing will collapse, and consumption will collapse along with it -- plus they are also deeply embedded within the global political structure.

There is an argument to suggest that the one way to solve this problem is to destroy the capital host (allow the system to collapse), but the problem with that is it often means war or extreme depression of some sort and does not guarantee that the whole thing won't start again in thirty years time.

Edited July 2, 2010 by dissident junk

[Zngland]

Now, that is my area. The speaker (a geographer) makes two crucial mistakes:

1st: The current crisis IS a market correction, despite and against governments interferences in the past (inflating the bubble with monetary policies too loose) and current attempts to stop it bursting (idem). Nobody ever said that market corrections are smooth, caring things. But at least they correct the market. Unlike in North Korea.

2nd: Marxist prediction of the end of capitalism is only for after capitalism develops the entire globe: "The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilisation." ("Manifesto of the Communist Party, Chapter I. Bourgeois and Proletarians, http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm#007)

( Absurdly rude and disgusting language Karl, even for the XIX century. :angry: ) Anyway, we still have to develop South-East Asia, Africa, and Central Asia. It will take a century for that.

I would appreciate if geographers could refrain from trying to lecture on Global Political Economy and/or Political Philosophy. Of course he/they/anybody can have an opinion, as any citizen/subject can, but not pose as a "specialist", when he is not.

Like Professor Blanchflower, a qualified teacher, posing as an Economist.

Proper qualifications people! For goodness sake!

.

I vote for you :

[Tired of Waiting]

I vote for you :

Cheers Zngland.

[Tired of Waiting]

I am sorry, but I think that video is just not good enough at all. It is typical of the surface-level thinking of so many Western intellectuals these days; no wonder the economic economic crisis hit them all out of the blue (it does feel very much like Michael Moore documentary).

I disagree with his analysis of the problem and the way he explains the issue -- it's almost propaganda in some sense, and advocates "a new social order" (whenever I read that phrase, I get suspicious -- "new social orders" tend to feature innocent people getting shot). To my mind, he simply doesn't grasp what the problem is at root, even when clues are right in front of his face. He appears to be well-informed but is actually about two strata away from the core, and it is his narrow Marxist thinking that is stopping him moving closer (if he delved right back to Marx's basic principles, he might actually move forward).

His fundamental mistake is that he views this crisis through the accumulated muck stuck to the lenses of 19th century Western industrial capitalism critiques, when the reality is that we now live in a hybrid weave of Western post-industrial developed countries, Eastern developing state capitalist industrial countries, and politically unstable developing countries with natural resources that face waves of imperialism, where the providers of financial capital hail from all manner of socio-economic groups (state and private) and that capital flies all over the world.

In short, he is trying to explain why a flat screen LCD TV is on the blink by using a manual for an analogue Grundig from the 1950s.

The real issue, at heart, is not the existence of "capital" or "excess capital" per se (I presume he means financial capital), nor the repression of labour, nor systemic risk, but the behaviour of entities, plugged deep into the economic system, that can control significant financial capital flows and siphon out financial capital in the process, directing it to unproductive destinations instead of productive ones, and whom also siphon off capital returns when they are heading back to the owners of the original capital and also, in the process, then ensure that rewards for actual productive labour decrease on a perpetual basis.

In short, it is not capitalism per se that is the problem, it is the entities that influence, direct and misdirect where capital goes that are the real problem -- the parasites that feed off capital flows, and invent new and more complex ways to feed off it, using mirrors and sleights of hand to hide their tracks (and these entities are not necessarily "financiers" either).

He goes back to the 1970s, when he should really be looking at what happened at the end of the last age of globalisation: ie. capital and the economy prior to the first world war, then what happened after it, and then through looking at the events of the 1920s leading up to the Great Crash and the ensuing depression.

As with most modern narrow Marxists, he falls into the "capitalist = silk top-hatted billionaire monopolist who eats babies" trap. This sort of thinking will destroy the global economy if it takes root and influences policy. He seems to fail to understand that the providers of capital aren't necessarily a bunch of rich folk with family wealth who decide to invest in a factory when drinking Cognac down their club (his silk hat trope), but can be the accumulated pension savings of thousands of, say, average wage workers (who simply cannot afford to see the value of their labour decrease anymore than at present).

The problem is that we now can't get rid of the parasites because the parasites have gained so much control over the system that if we lever them off, the whole thing will collapse, and consumption will collapse along with it -- plus they are also deeply embedded within the global political structure.

There is an argument to suggest that the one way to solve this problem is to destroy the capital host (allow the system to collapse), but the problem with that is it often means war or extreme depression of some sort and does not guarantee that the whole thing won't start again in thirty years time.

Good post DJ.

[erranta]

<br />I am sorry, but I think that video is just not good enough at all. It is typical of the surface-level thinking of so many Western intellectuals these days; no wonder the economic economic crisis hit them all out of the blue (it does feel very much like Michael Moore documentary). <br /><br />I disagree with his analysis of the problem and the way he explains the issue -- it's almost propaganda in some sense, and advocates "a new social order" (whenever I read that phrase, I get suspicious -- "new social orders" tend to feature innocent people getting shot). To my mind, he simply doesn't grasp what the problem is at root, even when clues are right in front of his face. He appears to be well-informed but is actually about two strata away from the core, and it is his <i>narrow </i>Marxist thinking that is stopping him moving closer (if he delved right back to Marx's basic principles, he might actually move forward).<br /><br />His fundamental mistake is that he views this crisis through the accumulated muck stuck to the lenses of 19th century Western industrial capitalism critiques, when the reality is that we now live in a hybrid weave of Western post-industrial developed countries, Eastern developing state capitalist industrial countries, and politically unstable developing countries with natural resources that face waves of imperialism, where the providers of financial capital hail from all manner of socio-economic groups (state and private) and that capital flies all over the world.<br /><br />In short, he is trying to explain why a flat screen LCD TV is on the blink by using a manual for an analogue Grundig from the 1950s. <br /><br />The real issue, at heart, is not the existence of "capital" or "excess capital" per se (I presume he means financial capital), nor the repression of labour, nor systemic risk, but the behaviour of entities, plugged deep into the economic system, that can control significant financial capital flows and siphon out financial capital in the process, directing it to unproductive destinations instead of productive ones, and whom also siphon off capital returns when they are heading back to the owners of the original capital and also, in the process, then ensure that rewards for actual productive labour decrease on a perpetual basis. <br /><br />In short, it is not capitalism per se that is the problem, it is the entities that influence, direct and misdirect where capital goes that are the real problem -- the parasites that feed off capital flows, and invent new and more complex ways to feed off it, using mirrors and sleights of hand to hide their tracks (and these entities are not necessarily "financiers" either). <br /><br />He goes back to the 1970s, when he should really be looking at what happened at the end of the last age of globalisation: ie. capital and the economy prior to the first world war, then what happened after it, and then through looking at the events of the 1920s leading up to the Great Crash and the ensuing depression.<br /><br />As with most modern <i>narrow </i>Marxists, he falls into the "capitalist = silk top-hatted billionaire monopolist who eats babies" trap. This sort of thinking will destroy the global economy if it takes root and influences policy. He seems to fail to understand that the providers of capital aren't necessarily a bunch of rich folk with family wealth who decide to invest in a factory when drinking Cognac down their club (his silk hat trope), but can be the accumulated pension savings of thousands of, say, average wage workers (who simply cannot afford to see the value of their labour decrease anymore than at present). <br /><br />The problem is that we now can't get rid of the parasites because the parasites have gained so much control over the system that if we lever them off, the whole thing will collapse, and consumption will collapse along with it -- plus they are also deeply embedded within the global political structure. <br /><br />There is an argument to suggest that the one way to solve this problem is to destroy the capital host (allow the system to collapse), but the problem with that is it often means war or extreme depression of some sort and does not guarantee that the whole thing won't start again in thirty years time.<br />

<br /><br

/><br />

MM

Mick MOOre

Master Mason

Monu_mental Mistake!

[waitingscot]

What field do you imagine he is talking about? You have not explained that.

As another poster pointed out, Harvey has been studying the Marxist perspective on society for most of his long academic career. If that is not his field then what is?

In geography? No, of course not.

In the field he is talking about in that YouTibe video? Yes.

Fair enough. We can all have our own opinions.

[waitingscot]

Isn't this the Glenn Beck/IMF narrative Harvey summed up and dismissed in his analysis?

I am sorry, but I think that video is just not good enough at all. It is typical of the surface-level thinking of so many Western intellectuals these days; no wonder the economic economic crisis hit them all out of the blue (it does feel very much like Michael Moore documentary).

I disagree with his analysis of the problem and the way he explains the issue -- it's almost propaganda in some sense, and advocates "a new social order" (whenever I read that phrase, I get suspicious -- "new social orders" tend to feature innocent people getting shot). To my mind, he simply doesn't grasp what the problem is at root, even when clues are right in front of his face. He appears to be well-informed but is actually about two strata away from the core, and it is his narrow Marxist thinking that is stopping him moving closer (if he delved right back to Marx's basic principles, he might actually move forward).

His fundamental mistake is that he views this crisis through the accumulated muck stuck to the lenses of 19th century Western industrial capitalism critiques, when the reality is that we now live in a hybrid weave of Western post-industrial developed countries, Eastern developing state capitalist industrial countries, and politically unstable developing countries with natural resources that face waves of imperialism, where the providers of financial capital hail from all manner of socio-economic groups (state and private) and that capital flies all over the world.

In short, he is trying to explain why a flat screen LCD TV is on the blink by using a manual for an analogue Grundig from the 1950s.

The real issue, at heart, is not the existence of "capital" or "excess capital" per se (I presume he means financial capital), nor the repression of labour, nor systemic risk, but the behaviour of entities, plugged deep into the economic system, that can control significant financial capital flows and siphon out financial capital in the process, directing it to unproductive destinations instead of productive ones, and whom also siphon off capital returns when they are heading back to the owners of the original capital and also, in the process, then ensure that rewards for actual productive labour decrease on a perpetual basis.

In short, it is not capitalism per se that is the problem, it is the entities that influence, direct and misdirect where capital goes that are the real problem -- the parasites that feed off capital flows, and invent new and more complex ways to feed off it, using mirrors and sleights of hand to hide their tracks (and these entities are not necessarily "financiers" either).

He goes back to the 1970s, when he should really be looking at what happened at the end of the last age of globalisation: ie. capital and the economy prior to the first world war, then what happened after it, and then through looking at the events of the 1920s leading up to the Great Crash and the ensuing depression.

As with most modern narrow Marxists, he falls into the "capitalist = silk top-hatted billionaire monopolist who eats babies" trap. This sort of thinking will destroy the global economy if it takes root and influences policy. He seems to fail to understand that the providers of capital aren't necessarily a bunch of rich folk with family wealth who decide to invest in a factory when drinking Cognac down their club (his silk hat trope), but can be the accumulated pension savings of thousands of, say, average wage workers (who simply cannot afford to see the value of their labour decrease anymore than at present).

The problem is that we now can't get rid of the parasites because the parasites have gained so much control over the system that if we lever them off, the whole thing will collapse, and consumption will collapse along with it -- plus they are also deeply embedded within the global political structure.

There is an argument to suggest that the one way to solve this problem is to destroy the capital host (allow the system to collapse), but the problem with that is it often means war or extreme depression of some sort and does not guarantee that the whole thing won't start again in thirty years time.

[Tired of Waiting]

What field do you imagine he is talking about? You have not explained that.

I don't "imagine" it. As I wrote above (post #23) that YouTube video is on Global Political Economy and Political Philosophy.

As another poster pointed out, Harvey has been studying the Marxist perspective on society for most of his long academic career. If that is not his field then what is?

Even sadder, as he still didn't get the very core of Marxism economics, as I also mentioned in that same post, #23.

.

Edited July 2, 2010 by Tired of Waiting

[waitingscot]

You don't think there is an overlap between political economy and social geography?

If your area of expertise is political economy then are you not stepping outside of that field commenting on Marxist economics?

I don't "imagine" it. As I wrote above (post #23) that YouTube video is on Global Political Economy and Political Philosophy.

Even sadder, as he still didn't get the very core of Marxism economics, as I also mentioned in that same post, #23.

.

[Big Orange]

Here's the critique:

Now I must say he's talking rubbish about India, since what good are a relatively large group of super wealthy oligarchs when the public roads alone are terrible and unsafe? And then there are frequent powercuts and sharing borders with an exploding Pakistan and sinking Bangladesh.

Edited July 4, 2010 by Big Orange

[D.C.]

Here's the critique:

Now I must say he's talking rubbish about India, since what good are a relatively large group of super wealthy oligarchs when the public roads alone are terrible and unsafe? And then there are frequent powercuts and sharing borders with an exploding Pakistan and sinking Bangladesh.

The critique is rubbish.

He claims to destroy the entire argument using one single fact, wages have risen in the last 30 years and pulls up a US census chart showing average wages then and now.

Poor boy has never heard of inflation...

[Big Orange]

Here's a good article on the ridiculous wage and wealth disparities in the United States that flatten that cretin's arguments and how (like later Roman Emperors) the corporate CEOs are concentrating entirely on their own welfare to the ultimate detriment of their followers and institutions:

Wealth, Income, and Power

And not only inflation was a factor, the extortionate house prices in American and Britain are a big factor and a primary reason why credit cards were distributed to people who couldn't afford them with their small wages and savings). And then the corporatard bleats on about Greece's generous public sector, not taking into account the machinations of Goldman-Sachs and oily Greek plutocrats with their offshore accounts that dragged down the Euro currency (which was poorly conceived anyway). And he thinks that reigning in the billionaires and megacorporations is motivated by jealously (didn't 1980s Tory freaks rant about the politics of envy?).

Edited July 4, 2010 by Big Orange