Originally posted by spruce112358Absolutely. Cultures and regions that were slow to begin to use money instead of barter were also historically slow to develop commerce, culture, literature, etc.
Money is a brilliant invention. Nothing would irritate me more than getting a monthly salary in sugar beets. I'll take 1's and 0's every time.
The digital world however creates a whole new arena of fraud involving money, and banks linked with government is an incestuous relationship.
Originally posted by normbenignThe latter point is not wrong in practice but wrongheaded in its analysis.
Absolutely. Cultures and regions that were slow to begin to use money instead of barter were also historically slow to develop commerce, culture, literature, etc.
The digital world however creates a whole new arena of fraud involving money, and banks linked with government is an incestuous relationship.
Ireland was an excellent example of govenment ministers having corrupt associations with commercial banks to the detriment of everyone and some of the banks that were rescued by the Irish taxpayers ought not to have been rescued by anyone in their right minds.
England is an excellent example of the government being prepared to protect "The City" at the expense of the industrial and other commercial sectors. Certainly the interests of "The City" and of business are now directly at odds in Britain and while Europe works to disentangle the mess created by poorly regulated banking, the Cameron Government is working to prevent them doing so under the idiotic label of being a "bulldog" to protect "Britain" (viz their Britain, not our's) from "Brussels" (viz Europe's concerted effort to get banking back where it belongs in a subordinate role, to regulate and control its activities and to tax it properly in a way that promotes responsible investment at the expense of speculation and plain gambling with other people's money).
However, it is very much the job of government (our governments) to regulate banking and ensure that it is acting in our interests. No other mechanism is capable of doing this. So there is an unavoidable regulatory role which has to be designed in a way that works.
There is something deeply troubling about private corporations being in such positions of power vis a vis elected governments. The present financial system is clearly unsustainable and corporations like S & P and Moody's who showed that their ratings can be brought for the right price in the lead up to the 2008 Financial Crisis should be reined in. The US government granted them undeserved power and influence in the 1970s when the SEC was too lazy to rate what bonds were investment grade as part of a regulation to ensure that brokers had sufficient reliable capital reserves and simply made S & P, Moody's and Fitch official designated rating agencies. Whereas earlier these agencies would charge their subscribers for reports rating corporate securities, now corporations paid them to rate their debt (and only paid them if they were satisfied with the rating!). The inherent corruption of such a system is obvious. As Roger Lowenstein said describing this arrangement in his excellent The End of Wall Street:
imagine the big rating agencies as three competitive saloons standing side by side, with each free to set its own drinking age. Before long, nine-year-olds would be downing bourbon.(p. 41)
Yes. What has fascinated me is a process as follows. Various countries (Ireland was one but there are plenty) make themselves available for foreign companies (not just financial ones) to set up offices or even "head" offices in their jurisdication and offer "light" regulation in exchange for nothing very tangible. They enjoy the vast cash sums floating through their exchanges although these destabilise their economies and introduce huge risks.
Companies take advantage of these offshore opportunities to hide their earnings from supervision, regulation and taxation. They proceed to gamble quite irresponsibly with the cash (which is not their own, but their shareholders'😉. These are not just fly by night affairs - major corportions channel their earnings through these offshore accounts.
Shareholders tolerate this because they lack ethics and think it will make them wealthier - in fact, they are allowing their hard won capital gains to be misused by unaccountable gamblers. Why don't shareholders demand that their companies keep the money right where they can see it and ensure it is regulated to the n'th degree?
National governments allow this, on the weird argument that otherwise the wealth creators would not invest in their countries. Actually, they are wealth consumers and destroyers of course. Relatively honest nationally based companies are placed at an immediate and significant competitive disadvantage - having to include local taxes in their cost base is not helpful when rivals can evade this. So the dishonest thrive and seize unfair market shares, siphoning out ever more of the wealth.
Everyone tells us these offshore accounts are beyond their jurisdiction but actually, they are an intrinsic part of the money merry go round.
Thus so called global business is blossoming and nation states are being sucked dry. Investment? Well, if owning Chelsea Football Club is an investment that helps make life better in Russia then I am a died in the wool communist after all. Look at what is happening to Russia's wealth and to Russian people!
This is not wealth creation! It is wealth destruction on a grand scale. And we are watching our governments promote this model of business while washing their well oiled hands.
What if America (say) insisted that all earnings in that country are taxed in that country. And Britain, and others? Allow people to take their capital out only after tax is deducted and not before.
If a decent few major countries did this, well what would the multi-nationals do to earn their wealth? Sell their luxury cars and upmarket hair straigheners to Mozambique? Refuse to do business with the Americans? Or in Britain? Don't make me laugh too much.
Originally posted by finneganNo argument that the government is charged in the US Constitution with coining and regulating money.
The latter point is not wrong in practice but wrongheaded in its analysis.
Ireland was an excellent example of govenment ministers having corrupt associations with commercial banks to the detriment of everyone and some of the banks that were rescued by the Irish taxpayers ought not to have been rescued by anyone in their right minds.
England is an e ...[text shortened]... ere is an unavoidable regulatory role which has to be designed in a way that works.
My problem is with government abdicating this role, by authorizing a private entity to do it.
Originally posted by no1marauderIt starts with the FED and works its way outward. Its like hiring Wyle Coyote to guard a roadrunner sanctuary.
There is something deeply troubling about private corporations being in such positions of power vis a vis elected governments. The present financial system is clearly unsustainable and corporations like S & P and Moody's who showed that their ratings can be brought for the right price in the lead up to the 2008 Financial Crisis should be reined in. The U ...[text shortened]... free to set its own drinking age. Before long, nine-year-olds would be downing bourbon.(p. 41)