Announcement

Collapse

Welcome to Moorcock's Miscellany

Dear reader,

Many people have given their valuable time to create a website for the pleasure of posing questions to Michael Moorcock, meeting people from around the world, and mining the site for information. Please follow one of the links above to learn more about the site.

Thank you,
Reinart der Fuchs
See more
See less

Revealed – the capitalist network that runs the world

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    "The issue which has swept down the centuries and which will have to be fought sooner or later is the people versus the banks." Lord Acton

    Comment


    • #32
      Interestingly enough, our treasurer and deputy prime minister wrote an essay in the last few days also talking about the threat of such lobying by the "mega rich"

      Comment


      • #33
        So what are we supposed to do? Nationalizing (and politicizing things like interest rates) opens up another can of worms.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by opaloka View Post
          So what are we supposed to do? Nationalizing (and politicizing things like interest rates) opens up another can of worms.
          The unfortunate answer to that question is near unworkable without an extended period of depression (best case) or upheaval and anarchy (worst case). In the UK, the two party system of government has illustrated this point perfectly for decades.

          The Labour party, when in power, traditionally spend their time nationalising industry, increasing national borrowing and public spending, relaxing controls on such systems as immigration and taxation ... which, despite making them popular with the public in the short term, creates a financial black hole which just increases in size the longer they are allowed to remain in power. Eventually people wake up to it and vote them out.

          The Conservative party then come into government with an economic nightmare (bordering on bankruptcy on more than one occasion), and have to sell off nationalised business, make spending and budget cuts, and basically act like the all round bad guys ... this makes them extremely unpopular, and their policies end up eroding community and society in favour of the profitable businesses that fuel economic recovery. After a while people get sick of this also ... but they go back to a Labour government and the cycle starts again.

          The only way out of that sort of vicious circle (IMHO) is to change the way people look at the relationships between government, business and society, and making the powers that be re-evaluate the difference between what is good for the country and what 'they think' is good for the country.

          The same would apply to the way lobbying is treated ... and the generally recognised perceptions of self-interest and conflict of interest. This would almost certainly lead to a period of unease and boardroom conflict between the government and business ... and the public would, as always be caught in the crossfire.

          Pebble, you're right, they don't meet ... but in the case of the big four supermarket chains in the UK, they swap emails and, as proven, fix prices between themselves ... which, as shown when they got caught, is actually illegal.
          Last edited by Timberwolf; 03-05-2012, 07:11 AM.
          Twitter: The system that put paid to the old adage 'politicians only lie when their lips start moving'

          Comment


          • #35
            As interesting as the article is, it seems to have missed out on the central way companies control each other: interlocking directorships. While outright ownership of stocks certainly can mean having enough shares to influence or dictate voting, who is on the boards of directors are the ones who run the company, pic the executives and set the agendas.

            In the early part of the 20th century in the United States, the central part of the whole trust-busting program of President Theodore Roosevelt was based on breaking up not simply ownership but most importantly the interlocking directorships in so many businesses. The monopolies at the time were actually widely owned, but the various boards were practically incestuous, to the point where a dozen men meeting at the New York Yacht Club or the Union Club could set the agenda for a third of the economy.

            In my opinion, if there is a conspiracy afoot its likely not in outright ownership but in the meetings in places like Davos, the Bilderberg gatherings and the Bohemian Club meeting in total secrecy in its famous Grove. The 1%, regardless of nationality, has always enjoyed its restricted clubs.

            "When we remember we are all mad, the mysteries disappear and life stands explained."
            - Mark Twain, notebook entry, 1898.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Timberwolf View Post

              So while it may be true that conspiracy theories are false, I don't believe it can be said that ALL conspiracy theories are wrong ... after all, they all started off making similar assumptions.
              A theory cannot be false -- just unproven. Granted, it ain't much, but my two bits.
              Any fool can make a rule, and any fool will mind it.

              ~Henry David Thoreau

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by opaloka View Post
                So what are we supposed to do? Nationalizing (and politicizing things like interest rates) opens up another can of worms.
                I've nothing against nationalizing companies that have ripped off the working folk. Over and over, and over . .
                Any fool can make a rule, and any fool will mind it.

                ~Henry David Thoreau

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Wanderlust View Post

                  A theory cannot be false -- just unproven. Granted, it ain't much, but my two bits.
                  Actually, that is exactly backwards. A theory can't be proven true, only supported, and the more support accrues, the more "sound" the theory is considered. A theory can be proven false, however.

                  hair splitting asside, I agree with the spirit of WL and Timberwolf's posts.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X