Dubstepforum.com

There is that.

If you support the EU as it is today then you are either ignorant to how it works or just plain anti-democracy, end of story. Now whether or not democracy is the only way of doing things is another question. I really don't see how people can support the running of many aspects of our country by people who are not from here and have likely never been here, it's completely ridiculous imo. I would put money on us being out of the EU in 10 years. The EU is, in my opinion, directly responsible for the rise of the far right in Europe. I usually like to leave the scaremongering to nwj but the way the EU is going it will end sooner rather than later in violent up rises.

Yeah the EU needs huge reforms, probably kick out the smaller struggling economies too.. keeping them in is bad all round, the likes of Germany don't want it and the likes of Greece would do far better to have their own sovereignty. Its a huge clash of interests. They just don't want to cause it'll look like a failure.. but I don't think anybody is under the impression the EU has been nothing but a massive failure since the crash.

Capitalism Eating Its Children - http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/30/opini ... share&_r=1

Was a good read.

Massive hi cut, the economy is sounding dull.

stop right there

"economic"

"numbers up"

[+] Spoiler

Muncey wrote:Yeah the EU needs huge reforms, probably kick out the smaller struggling economies too.. keeping them in is bad all round, the likes of Germany don't want it and the likes of Greece would do far better to have their own sovereignty. Its a huge clash of interests. They just don't want to cause it'll look like a failure.. but I don't think anybody is under the impression the EU has been nothing but a massive failure since the crash.

Capitalism Eating Its Children - http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/30/opini ... share&_r=1

Was a good read.

The article is bad because the premise it works from, that we live in 'unfettered capitalism' despite the endless limitations placed on, the centalization of currency by the state etc, is false and like others before it, it didn't define what 'unfettered capitalism' means and what it would look like. It presupposes it like a boogeyman.

I am waiting for a fair and balanced analysis of our economy that isn't just "fair and ballanced to the left" or isn't more anti-market, pro-government hate-speech by a person who thinks the free interactions between individuals need to be controlled by a person that knows best.

Carney pulls no punches. Big banks were too big to fail, operating in a “heads-I-win-tails-you-lose bubble.” Benchmarks were rigged for personal gain. Equity markets blatantly favored “the technologically empowered over the retail investor.” Mistrust grew — and persists.

That's not 'unfettered capitalism', this is criticized by the (mocked and ridiculed) unfettered capitalists. This is the Keynsianism. Keynsianism is the opposite of 'unfereted capitalism'. Its answer is invasions in the market to recrify market mistakes, but the 'big banks being too big to fail" isn't a market mistake. It was power given to them through legislation and they were bailed out using tax money and printed fiat currency. The market solution would've been to _let them fail_, take a sip of the admittedly nasty cough syrup that follows from that, but have the market go back into equlibrium where things have actual value and people can determine needs and wants through that value.

Yeah you're right, the market solution would have been to let them fail... but thats the whole point of "too big to fail".. the fact that they got so big it would have been an absolute economic disaster and highly irresponsible to let them fail. The US sort of did that, they championed the bullshit "markets work best" until they realised they clearly do not.. Greenspan has been quoted on numerous occasions admitting so. America tried to stick to their guns and left Lehman Brothers to go bankrupt and it was a disaster, they pretty quickly went "fuck that" and bailed everybody else out.

Also Mark Carney is a fucking clown anyway.. he claimed big banks were too big to fail then bragged this in 2013:

“By 2050, UK banks’ assets could exceed nine times GDP, and that is to say nothing of the potentially rapid growth of foreign banking and shadow banking based in London.”

You'd expect that to be a warning, but hes bragging about how good it is that the banking sector is going to be 9 times bigger than the actual economy. Greater the size -> greater the possibility of chaos. I'd take anything that guy says with a pinch of salt.

Genevieve wrote:I am waiting for a fair and balanced analysis of our economy that isn't just "fair and ballanced to the left" or isn't more anti-market, pro-government hate-speech by a person who thinks the free interactions between individuals need to be controlled by a person that knows best.

Thats a typical free market view of things. Just because people don't believe in the free market or the neoliberal farce doesn't mean they're pro-government where interactions between individuals should be controlled by a person that knows best. Its about regulating things and keeping an eye on things to stop them getting out of control. Banks, legally and illegally, operating extremely recklessly, commercial banks creating money out of thin air to fund their speculation (despite what the economics textbooks tell you), asset prices booming out of control.

You can't be surprised the analysis of a right-wing neoliberal failure to be mostly left-wing just like you can't be surprised neoliberalism and neoclassical economics thrived causing huge deregulation after the failure of communism. Both have been economic disasters.

This was a decent watch on the EU.

Any syndicalist in the snh?

Countries are outmoded concepts. Governments are too entrenched in the current systems to change in a non-catastrophic way.

I would propose that the only way to enact change in a non-catastrophic way would be to start afresh. Perhaps in an offshore colony of some kind in international waters. Experiment with new economic and social models. Like it or not, the environmental situation we find ourselves in is not solely due to economic foibles but also societal and human values. To fix the situation requires new human values, new societal values and new ways of building economic systems.

kay wrote:Countries are outmoded concepts. Governments are too entrenched in the current systems to change in a non-catastrophic way.

I would propose that the only way to enact change in a non-catastrophic way would be to start afresh. Perhaps in an offshore colony of some kind in international waters. Experiment with new economic and social models. Like it or not, the environmental situation we find ourselves in is not solely due to economic foibles but also societal and human values. To fix the situation requires new human values, new societal values and new ways of building economic systems.

Absolutely.

Unfortunately, humanity also has a propensity for not trying out new stuff like this until they're forced to - through massive catastrophe usually. We get stuck in a rut and carry on until carrying on simply isn't an option.

I think as a species we have gone as far as we can go, we will stagnate for perhaps a couple of hundred years and then slowly (or quickly) die out. Changing the fundamental ways our societies work is impossible and will never happen imo.

bit like believing in santa

m8son wrote:I think as a species we have gone as far as we can go, we will stagnate for perhaps a couple of hundred years

That is honestly what you think? After some time of serious thought?

You've surveyed all of the emerging (or already emerged) technologies, and that is what you see happening?

As our resident big nutted scientist?

I'd think that you'd at least be susceptible to these lies:

Yep, the end is nigh my friend, the arrogance/false optimism of our species is amazing.

Also what i meant is we have gone as far as we can go in quality of life and in economic/societal terms. I mean yeah of course we can prolong life but what's the point if quality of life is going to be increasingly shit as more and more people are produced?

fuck mason

i wanna live 4eva eva

thats deep

m8son wrote:more and more people are produced?

I don't think you need to worry about that.