Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Nickbat]

http://www.legalforensicauditors.com/2011/11/10/harvard-economics-students-walk-out-of-class-in-protest-for-professor-teaching-economics-in-a-manner-favorable-to-elitism-and-corporate-control/
 
 
 
http://www.npr.org/2011/11/03/141969009/economics-class-protests-perceived-bias

“Personally, I’m slightly uncomfortable receiving money in scholarships that come from a direct result of displacing people and depriving them of their lands and their livelihoods,” said Reed McConnell, a Harvard Freshman."

Huh?

Maybe when he is older he will understand the real world. 

come on Nickbat, even the children start to see the reality.. those old teachers telling all time porkies.. and the crysis (which belongs to capitalist system) is so real that no one want to hear stories  fairy tales any more
 
besides , those children from Harvard doesnt belong to the poor class ..

A few kids walk out of a lecture...and probably wander off to McDonalds for a burger and fries.

Hardly a major event, Cem. 

     another head in the sand event

If you really want to live in Marxist state, Cem, then that's fine by me. But not here, thanks. 

[Dishevelled Den]

No. Most politicians these days do what is good for themselves and their coterie. The markets are not faceless monsters. They are the aggregate of manifold financial institutions, many of which are looking after your pensions and savings. There is no one person, or one company looking after them. They react according to where they think they should place your money and expect a return.

There are many faults within modern banking systems but, at the end of the day, they MUST make a profit. After all, who in their right minds would give you an interest-free loan to buy your house/car etc. and meanwhile pay for all their staff, branches and cash machines. We must have banks. We can't hide cash under the pillow. There is an argument for a firewall between retail and capital banking, but that's another story.     

Yes, as a matter of fact I can agree with that analysis - however;

they MUST make a profit

this drive/lust for profit, at apparently any cost, has laid bare the basic failing in the human condition - the desire to have something that another has not and to exploit others/ a system to get it.

Irresponsible financial dealings have, amongst other things, been responsible for all but discrediting the banking industry; in addition, many aspects of market trading seem little more than naked gambling by wide boys divorced from the reality of ordinary day to day living.

[Nickbat]

That is my point. Politicians (in theory) answer to the people and are doing the right things for their country. Money markets have little interest in anything other making money. There is a lot more at stake here than making a bit of money!

Germany- a strong economy. Really? Only while there are people in other countries that can afford to buy their goods. The Italians, Greeks and so on won't be buying much from them pretty soon. Then the French.............

No. Most politicians these days do what is good for themselves and their coterie. The markets are not faceless monsters. They are the aggregate of manifold financial institutions, many of which are looking after your pensions and savings. There is no one person, or one company looking after them. They react according to where they think they should place your money and expect a return.

There are many faults within modern banking systems but, at the end of the day, they MUST make a profit. After all, who in their right minds would give you an interest-free loan to buy your house/car etc. and meanwhile pay for all their staff, branches and cash machines. We must have banks. We can't hide cash under the pillow. There is an argument for a firewall between retail and capital banking, but that's another story.     

SCS, DFS and numerous other furniture retailers........

I must go into my local DFS and order my chequebook, re-arrange my mortgage and pension, withdraw cash from their ATM and, while they're about it, ask how many branches will deal with my deposits and transfers.

Chalk and cheese, Varche. 

[Nickbat]

No. Most politicians these days do what is good for themselves and their coterie. The markets are not faceless monsters. They are the aggregate of manifold financial institutions, many of which are looking after your pensions and savings. There is no one person, or one company looking after them. They react according to where they think they should place your money and expect a return.

There are many faults within modern banking systems but, at the end of the day, they MUST make a profit. After all, who in their right minds would give you an interest-free loan to buy your house/car etc. and meanwhile pay for all their staff, branches and cash machines. We must have banks. We can't hide cash under the pillow. There is an argument for a firewall between retail and capital banking, but that's another story.     

Yes, as a matter of fact I can agree with that analysis - however;

they MUST make a profit

this drive/lust for profit, at apparently any cost, has laid bare the basic failing in the human condition - the desire to have something that another has not and to exploit others/ a system to get it.

Irresponsible financial dealings have, amongst other things, been responsible for all but discrediting the banking industry, in addition many aspects of market trading seem little more than naked gambling by wide boys divorced from the reality of ordinary day to day living.

The alternative to making a profit is making a loss. The chances of keeping total balance are negligible. I know which I prefer.

I am astounded these days by how many people deride the "speculators" yet are still gamblers themselves. A shopkeeper will go to the cash-and-carry to buy goods that he will (speculatively) put on his shelves and, he hopes, sell at a profit. We all pay into a pension and, hope, that it will still pay enough to keep us going in our dotage to pay for a decent life for (hopefully) quite a few years, even though we have ceased to be productive.

The alternative to this system is one by which the state will decide how much your efforts are worth and will pay you accordingly. The state will decide how much you charge for eggs and bread. The state will set the prices and the returns for everything. The state will decide what is produced. The lazy will be rewarded as much as the industrious, for there is no market measure of performance.

We would live in a grey world, devoid of independence, free thought and free activity. Yes, you would hopefully not starve, but life would be so interminably dull and devoid of drive and ambition, you may as well be dead...

[cem_devecioglu]

http://www.legalforensicauditors.com/2011/11/10/harvard-economics-students-walk-out-of-class-in-protest-for-professor-teaching-economics-in-a-manner-favorable-to-elitism-and-corporate-control/
 
 
 
http://www.npr.org/2011/11/03/141969009/economics-class-protests-perceived-bias

“Personally, I’m slightly uncomfortable receiving money in scholarships that come from a direct result of displacing people and depriving them of their lands and their livelihoods,” said Reed McConnell, a Harvard Freshman."

Huh?

Maybe when he is older he will understand the real world. 

come on Nickbat, even the children start to see the reality.. those old teachers telling all time porkies.. and the crysis (which belongs to capitalist system) is so real that no one want to hear stories  fairy tales any more
 
besides , those children from Harvard doesnt belong to the poor class ..

A few kids walk out of a lecture...and probably wander off to McDonalds for a burger and fries.

Hardly a major event, Cem. 

     another head in the sand event

If you really want to live in Marxist state, Cem, then that's fine by me. But not here, thanks. 

Nick, actually its not a question of what system I prefer to live.. its the reality of this system what forces us to see which was pointed out long time ago by Marx..  many people lost their jobs, despite the countries/worlds population increase which means demands for many things increase.. but the industrial productions decrease .. and the money in the markets flew from one point to another  faster than the speed of light and leaving masses /govts frustrared/helpless.. and then we try to pay back/solve/balance the problem with our taxes ..
 
its not a simple problem of countries spending more than their income..  because they were shown a film which they were led to believe its real and at one point the clock gongs 12 o clock in cinderella story and all horses become rats and the car turns to a pumpkin..
 
no one have the right to play with masses lifes in that way.. and please remember some people in middle east pay with their lifes not only with their jobs..
 
 

[albitz]

No. Most politicians these days do what is good for themselves and their coterie. The markets are not faceless monsters. They are the aggregate of manifold financial institutions, many of which are looking after your pensions and savings. There is no one person, or one company looking after them. They react according to where they think they should place your money and expect a return.

There are many faults within modern banking systems but, at the end of the day, they MUST make a profit. After all, who in their right minds would give you an interest-free loan to buy your house/car etc. and meanwhile pay for all their staff, branches and cash machines. We must have banks. We can't hide cash under the pillow. There is an argument for a firewall between retail and capital banking, but that's another story.     

Yes, as a matter of fact I can agree with that analysis - however;

they MUST make a profit

this drive/lust for profit, at apparently any cost, has laid bare the basic failing in the human condition - the desire to have something that another has not and to exploit others/ a system to get it.

Irresponsible financial dealings have, amongst other things, been responsible for all but discrediting the banking industry, in addition many aspects of market trading seem little more than naked gambling by wide boys divorced from the reality of ordinary day to day living.

The alternative to making a profit is making a loss. The chances of keeping total balance are negligible. I know which I prefer.

I am astounded these days by how many people deride the "speculators" yet are still gamblers themselves. A shopkeeper will go to the cash-and-carry to buy goods that he will (speculatively) put on his shelves and, he hopes, sell at a profit. We all pay into a pension and, hope, that it will still pay enough to keep us going in our dotage to pay for a decent life for (hopefully) quite a few years, even though we have ceased to be productive.

The alternative to this system is one by which the state will decide how much your efforts are worth and will pay you accordingly. The state will decide how much you charge for eggs and bread. The state will set the prices and the returns for everything. The state will decide what is produced. The lazy will be rewarded as much as the industrious, for there is no market measure of performance.

We would live in a grey world, devoid of independence, free thought and free activity. Yes, you would hopefully not starve, but life would be so interminably dull and devoid of drive and ambition, you may as well be dead...

Sums it up nicely.

[Dishevelled Den]

The alternative to making a profit is making a loss. The chances of keeping total balance are negligible. I know which I prefer.

I am astounded these days by how many people deride the "speculators" yet are still gamblers themselves. A shopkeeper will go to the cash-and-carry to buy goods that he will (speculatively) put on his shelves and, he hopes, sell at a profit. We all pay into a pension and, hope, that it will still pay enough to keep us going in our dotage to pay for a decent life for (hopefully) quite a few years, even though we have ceased to be productive.

The alternative to this system is one by which the state will decide how much your efforts are worth and will pay you accordingly. The state will decide how much you charge for eggs and bread. The state will set the prices and the returns for everything. The state will decide what is produced. The lazy will be rewarded as much as the industrious, for there is no market measure of performance.

We would live in a grey world, devoid of independence, free thought and free activity. Yes, you would hopefully not starve, but life would be so interminably dull and devoid of drive and ambition, you may as well be dead...

Why are we in this mess at the moment?

[Webby the Bear]

Hi guys,

My opinion is this:

Everyone is guilty; the banks for lending to people who can't afford to pay loans back and also completely screwing up in commercial debt. and also people who take loans out. there nees to be some personal responsibility too. and finally labour's fault for not imputtin regulations prior to the collapse.

however i do also think that the ''crisis'' isnt that bad and that the newspapers have sensationalised something that of course has the potential to get out of hand but actually is nowhere near it.

jusrt my opinion 

[Nickbat]

The alternative to making a profit is making a loss. The chances of keeping total balance are negligible. I know which I prefer.

I am astounded these days by how many people deride the "speculators" yet are still gamblers themselves. A shopkeeper will go to the cash-and-carry to buy goods that he will (speculatively) put on his shelves and, he hopes, sell at a profit. We all pay into a pension and, hope, that it will still pay enough to keep us going in our dotage to pay for a decent life for (hopefully) quite a few years, even though we have ceased to be productive.

The alternative to this system is one by which the state will decide how much your efforts are worth and will pay you accordingly. The state will decide how much you charge for eggs and bread. The state will set the prices and the returns for everything. The state will decide what is produced. The lazy will be rewarded as much as the industrious, for there is no market measure of performance.

We would live in a grey world, devoid of independence, free thought and free activity. Yes, you would hopefully not starve, but life would be so interminably dull and devoid of drive and ambition, you may as well be dead...

Why are we in this mess at the moment?

My own opinion?
Socialist EU, socialist POTUS 

[Nickbat]

Nick, actually its not a question of what system I prefer to live.. its the reality of this system what forces us to see which was pointed out long time ago by Marx.. 

Yep, we live much longer, have higher standards of living, are able to communicate instantly with anyone in the world, are able to travel to see others who live thousands of miles apart...etc.

All of which comes from capitalism.

Bit of a buggeration isn't it? 

[Dishevelled Den]

The alternative to making a profit is making a loss. The chances of keeping total balance are negligible. I know which I prefer.

I am astounded these days by how many people deride the "speculators" yet are still gamblers themselves. A shopkeeper will go to the cash-and-carry to buy goods that he will (speculatively) put on his shelves and, he hopes, sell at a profit. We all pay into a pension and, hope, that it will still pay enough to keep us going in our dotage to pay for a decent life for (hopefully) quite a few years, even though we have ceased to be productive.

The alternative to this system is one by which the state will decide how much your efforts are worth and will pay you accordingly. The state will decide how much you charge for eggs and bread. The state will set the prices and the returns for everything. The state will decide what is produced. The lazy will be rewarded as much as the industrious, for there is no market measure of performance.

We would live in a grey world, devoid of independence, free thought and free activity. Yes, you would hopefully not starve, but life would be so interminably dull and devoid of drive and ambition, you may as well be dead...

Why are we in this mess at the moment?

My own opinion?
Socialist EU, socialist POTUS 

I can certainly agree with that - but what about those in the banking/financial sector determined to maximise profit at all costs?

If the consequences of individuals having free thought, independence and the right to exploit their talents to get ahead have been responsible for creating a situation so serious that international conflict may ensue, then perhaps we should examine what can be done to have people act responsibly while maintaining that essential independence.

With freedom comes responsibility.

[Nickbat]

The alternative to making a profit is making a loss. The chances of keeping total balance are negligible. I know which I prefer.

I am astounded these days by how many people deride the "speculators" yet are still gamblers themselves. A shopkeeper will go to the cash-and-carry to buy goods that he will (speculatively) put on his shelves and, he hopes, sell at a profit. We all pay into a pension and, hope, that it will still pay enough to keep us going in our dotage to pay for a decent life for (hopefully) quite a few years, even though we have ceased to be productive.

The alternative to this system is one by which the state will decide how much your efforts are worth and will pay you accordingly. The state will decide how much you charge for eggs and bread. The state will set the prices and the returns for everything. The state will decide what is produced. The lazy will be rewarded as much as the industrious, for there is no market measure of performance.

We would live in a grey world, devoid of independence, free thought and free activity. Yes, you would hopefully not starve, but life would be so interminably dull and devoid of drive and ambition, you may as well be dead...

Why are we in this mess at the moment?

My own opinion?
Socialist EU, socialist POTUS 

I can certainly agree with that - but what about those in the banking/financial sector determined to maximise profit at all costs?

If the consequences of individuals having free thought, independence and the right to exploit their talents to get ahead have been responsible for creating a situation so serious that international conflict may ensue, then perhaps we should examine what can be done to have people act responsibly while maintaining that essential independence.

With freedom comes responsibility.

Unless I am mistaken, international conflicts were relatively common long before the establishment of banking and financial sectors.

The problem, IMHO, lies with governments and the political classes which they comprise. Too ready to seek influence and too ready to seek patronage from large corporates (witness how many ex-ministers are now directors!). The markets should be left to get on with it and governments should only intervene when there is a genuine grievance/cultural issue with the system which needs addressing.

Besides which, I see no evidence of international tension. Civil disorder, though, is highly likely.     

[Dishevelled Den]

Unless I am mistaken, international conflicts were relatively common long before the establishment of banking and financial sectors.

The problem, IMHO, lies with governments and the political classes which they comprise. Too ready to seek influence and too ready to seek patronage from large corporates (witness how many ex-ministers are now directors!). The markets should be left to get on with it and governments should only intervene when there is a genuine grievance/cultural issue with the system which needs addressing.

Besides which, I see no evidence of international tension. Civil disorder, though, is highly likely. 

Unless I am mistaken, international conflicts were relatively common long before the establishment of banking and financial sectors.

And the desire to acquire money, power, influence and the ability to shape events to the choosing of those engaged in hostilities played little part in many of those conflicts?

In my view we, as a race, are in a much more precarious state in terms of security than we have ever been, yes there will be civil disorder without doubt - but on that back of a general decline in order conflict will spread beyond national borders.

The markets should be left to get on with it

That is precisely what has happened Nick and that is partly why we are in the present mess.  Give people the ability to acquire wealth by manipulating events and they will do so irrespective of the consequences - its part of the human failing.

Like communism, naked capitalism will always show the less savoury aspects of the human condition - the desire to put one's self before anybody else and to try to survive and prosper at all costs.

I also see the irony of my comments in light of our system allowing me to retire 5 years ahead of the present norm on a final salary scheme and I’m thankful for it, however I can see also its failings - and many of those stem from the irresponsible behaviour we have seen in the banking and financial sectors, big business and corporatism where the bottom line is the word of God and the prime reason for being.

Greed and avarice will fuel the fires of conflict.

[cem_devecioglu]

Nick, actually its not a question of what system I prefer to live.. its the reality of this system what forces us to see which was pointed out long time ago by Marx.. 

Yep, we live much longer, have higher standards of living, are able to communicate instantly with anyone in the world, are able to travel to see others who live thousands of miles apart...etc.

All of which comes from capitalism.

Bit of a buggeration isn't it? 

technological developments will happen regardless of the economic system applied.. and please do not ignore most of the scientific inventions/principles were done/written long time before modern capitalism..  and most of those scientists/inventors died under very poor conditions
 
aside from all these factors , none of the economic systems ignore banking and acumulation of money/labour but we must point out that modern capitalism is the most dangerous one for human future as the uncontrollable greeds of powerful elite costs so much to human kind and to nature which the only thing we can give to our children ..
 
honestly speaking,  a system which prefers chaos,disorder and wars even can not be called as a system.. 
 
a simple question : why do you think the powerful elite dont enforce birth control ?
 
because they need cheap working slaves for their big profits.. do you think, they dont see this population increase is damaging the earth and all its resources ?  yes they do.. 
 
but for them solutions are simple, start a war , use mass destruction weapons and solve the problem.. and another question : what system build the first atomic bomb and use science against human kind ? (dont tell me it was necessary to finish the war, Japan was already on its knees)
 
 
ok.. I'll cut the story here.. capitalism is a point on human kind develeopment line, and when the day comes, it will eventually be thrown aside..
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

[cem_devecioglu]

The alternative to making a profit is making a loss. The chances of keeping total balance are negligible. I know which I prefer.

I am astounded these days by how many people deride the "speculators" yet are still gamblers themselves. A shopkeeper will go to the cash-and-carry to buy goods that he will (speculatively) put on his shelves and, he hopes, sell at a profit. We all pay into a pension and, hope, that it will still pay enough to keep us going in our dotage to pay for a decent life for (hopefully) quite a few years, even though we have ceased to be productive.

The alternative to this system is one by which the state will decide how much your efforts are worth and will pay you accordingly. The state will decide how much you charge for eggs and bread. The state will set the prices and the returns for everything. The state will decide what is produced. The lazy will be rewarded as much as the industrious, for there is no market measure of performance.

We would live in a grey world, devoid of independence, free thought and free activity. Yes, you would hopefully not starve, but life would be so interminably dull and devoid of drive and ambition, you may as well be dead...

Why are we in this mess at the moment?

My own opinion?
Socialist EU, socialist POTUS 

I can certainly agree with that - but what about those in the banking/financial sector determined to maximise profit at all costs?

If the consequences of individuals having free thought, independence and the right to exploit their talents to get ahead have been responsible for creating a situation so serious that international conflict may ensue, then perhaps we should examine what can be done to have people act responsibly while maintaining that essential independence.

With freedom comes responsibility.

Unless I am mistaken, international conflicts were relatively common long before the establishment of banking and financial sectors.

The problem, IMHO, lies with governments and the political classes which they comprise. Too ready to seek influence and too ready to seek patronage from large corporates (witness how many ex-ministers are now directors!). ** The markets should be left to get on with it and governments should only intervene when there is a genuine grievance/cultural issue with the system which needs addressing.

Besides which, I see no evidence of international tension. Civil disorder, though, is highly likely. 

do you really think the ruling elite which rules even govts will permit that.. they shift the markets and even plan many steps ahead on the chess game!!