Acropolis Now

[Louis VI the Fat]

Thus Soviet communism failed not simply because of centrally directed economics, but because of the inherent hypocrisy of the leadership cadre in the old CCCP? What say you?

There is centralised state capitalism: France. There is ultra neo-liberal communism: China.
Both escape the crude scale with free economy on one end and command economy on the other.

It is clear that centralised economies can function, sometimes very well. What did cause the dysfuntioning of Soviet communism, I couldn't say in a brief forum post. Nor, perhaps, in a lenghty essay either.

One thing struck me about an earlier post -- corruption. Perhaps that is THE defining element? To the extent that corruption is minimized, perhaps a culture/society can succeed under virtually ANY politico-economic system?

Do you have any idea how corrupt America and Britain appear to me? The extent to which the state is subordinate to further the private interests of private corporations is shocking to me. However, to an Anglosaxon, it simply means economical freedom. He defines it as economic freedom, will argue for tax reductions for corporations, for a retreat of government, for less regulation.

To an Anglosaxon, Greece appears to be endlessly corrupt. The politicians and the business leaders are not just in bed with one another, they are the very same persons. Contracts for waste disposal go to family members with a linked business. After a rigged bidding process, and to completely untransparant costs. A Greek might not immediately see this as corruption - why else would a local businessmen become mayor of his town if not to further his interests? And doesn't he employ a lot of people, who are dependent on the well-being of this business?


The funny thing is, that both the Anglosaxon and the Greek above will argue that the good of the businesses, which are indeed served in both examples, are the common good. And that criticism of their furthering the interests of their businesses in the manner they do is communist agitation.


Hence why I'm with the socialist protesters in Greece. The bloathed public sector, the corruption - they are not signs of leftwing wrongs to me, but rightist ones. To an American, they are decidedly unrightwing. Which shows the crudeness, perhaps uselessness, of regarding this as a left vs right problem.

[rory_20_uk]

Very good points. Using merely one dimension to define a country paints at best a massively skewed picture.

[al Roumi]

Loius:

Your point on culture is worthy of consideration...I get a sense of truth from it.

One thing struck me about an earlier post -- corruption. Perhaps that is THE defining element? To the extent that corruption is minimized, perhaps a culture/society can succeed under virtually ANY politico-economic system?

Thus Soviet communism failed not simply because of centrally directed economics, but because of the inherent hypocrisy of the leadership cadre in the old CCCP? What say you?

Slight disconnect between your hypothesis and example: If it is all about corruption, why do you single our planned economics as well??

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Slight disconnect between your hypothesis and example: If it is all about corruption, why do you single our planned economics as well??

I singled it out because, in the USA media and especially talk radio, the CCCP is cited as THE example of how directed central economies are doomed to failure because they run counter to human nature and economic sense. By drawing attention to the corruption/hypocrisy issue using that example, I was trying to explore if THAT was more the cause than what is cited as common wisdom in the USA.


Unlike Louis, I do not see the financial sector as corruption in any inherent fashion. However, the all too frequent fraud and vote buying certainly is.

If Norway has a corruption score near zero, the USA at 20, and Mexico at 87, is THAT more indicative of societal/economic success than whether the economy is directed or response to the whims of the market?

[al Roumi]

I singled it out because, in the USA media and especially talk radio, the CCCP is cited as THE example of how directed central economies are doomed to failure because they run counter to human nature and economic sense. By drawing attention to the corruption/hypocrisy issue using that example, I was trying to explore if THAT was more the cause than what is cited as common wisdom in the USA.

Unlike Louis, I do not see the financial sector as corruption in any inherent fashion. However, the all too frequent fraud and vote buying certainly is.

If Norway has a corruption score near zero, the USA at 20, and Mexico at 87, is THAT more indicative of societal/economic success than whether the economy is directed or response to the whims of the market?

If that last sentence (on what represents the "success" of a society/economy -i.e. the degree of free-market orientation) represents conventional wisdom in the US, I am happy that you challenge it.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Unlike Louis, I do not see the financial sector as corruption in any inherent fashion. However, the all too frequent fraud and vote buying certainly is.

From what I read I would say that he doesn't see the financial industry as corrupt per se, merely that the Wallstreet/City incarnation thereof shows a disturbing, unhealthy trend to complex financial `constructions' (or outright fraud) which are seemingly designed to benefit a few rich entrepreneurs at the cost of the taxpayer, the same entrepreneurs who then have the chutzpah to demand less regulation from the financial authorities.

Remember that Nasdaq guy and his Pyramid scheme? Is that a mere isolated incident or a more systemic cancer?
What about Enron?
What about Porsche?
What about Lehman?
Should there be firm safeguards against such exploits and mis-management?
Should there be repercussions for those involved that have meaningful consequence?
Why should such supposedly isolated financial games affect so large a population; have the power plunge the world into economic recession?
Should there be repercussions for those involved that have meaningful consequence?

Here's the Freemarket-capitalist answer to those:

Isolated, really bad of him to do that.
Isolated, really bad of them.
Incident, good on Porsche.
Isolated, even if that did take out half the finance sector of the world for a day or two.
No, it's a free market baby!
Nah, just chuck the culprits in prison, fine them or whatever; and as far as the duped are concerned: s!
Look: it is a free market, that's the free market that happens. And yes such consequences are all really awful and everything, but hey if there wasn't state regulation at all we would not be seeing any of this. Say that 50 times fast, maybe it rings true then.
What, wait: no way, no repercussions. We're having this free market here, and you would go spoil that with your dirty regulation? Where's my gun?

Okay, I do overdo it a bit. But there's something you can't easily define about the Wallstreet/City model of capitalism that doesn't sit well with values such as `responsibility', `transparency', or even `honesty'. Things that original free market ideology was built on. That does reek of corruption. Maybe ideas go off?

[Dîn-Heru]

Loius:

Your point on culture is worthy of consideration...I get a sense of truth from it.

One thing struck me about an earlier post -- corruption. Perhaps that is THE defining element? To the extent that corruption is minimized, perhaps a culture/society can succeed under virtually ANY politico-economic system?

Thus Soviet communism failed not simply because of centrally directed economics, but because of the inherent hypocrisy of the leadership cadre in the old CCCP? What say you?

I did my bachelor thesis on corruption and economic growth, and the studies I read seemed to indicate that how corruption is organised, ie whether it is systematic or arbitrary, is a good predictor of how damaging corruption is. This means that a country can have much corruption and not suffer, ie have high growth. What is important is eliminating uncertainty in the system. Mo (2001) for instance found that 53% of the link between corruption and growth is through corruption causing political instability (= uncertainty about economical conditions).

If you are interested in reading more, search for Andrei Shleifer and Robert Vishny (1993), or Blackburn and Forgues-Poccio (2009) and also Campos et.al (2002 (I think it was))

[Strike For The South]

Many of the reasons why American companies rape us is because the governments give them carte blanche and arm them with cool tax breaks

if they stayed out there would be no financial crisis.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I did my bachelor thesis on corruption and economic growth, and the studies I read seemed to indicate that how corruption is organised, ie whether it is systematic or arbitrary, is a good predictor of how damaging corruption is. This means that a country can have much corruption and not suffer, ie have high growth. What is important is eliminating uncertainty in the system. Mo (2001) for instance found that 53% of the link between corruption and growth is through corruption causing political instability (= uncertainty about economical conditions).

If you are interested in reading more, search for Andrei Shleifer and Robert Vishny (1993), or Blackburn and Forgues-Poccio (2009) and also Campos et.al (2002 (I think it was))

Very interesting. I always love if when some orgah turns out to be a real experts and teach us pompous amateurs the real deal!

Many of the reasons why American companies rape us is because the governments give them carte blanche and arm them with cool tax breaks

Oh, Strike, no. Please don't use that term. It is very offensive.

[Beskar]

Many of the reasons why American companies rape us is because the governments give them carte blanche and arm them with cool tax breaks

if they stayed out there would be no financial crisis.

No, if the government got their behinds in, then there would be no financial crisis, it is the other way round. It is because Americans love to give power to the exploiters of wealth, it is why they all happen.

If there would some one like myself running the country, there wouldn't be a boom-bust through our creation.

On the other hand, America has caused all the world-wide great depressions, on purpose. The very rich benefit in depressions, all the stocks hit the floor, then they buy them all up. The stocks always naturally recover. I know this, because I invested £1000 on the stock market doing this, and now have stocks worth £10,000. Now imagine if I was a millionaire, I would have really been raking the money in.

I haven't got an economics degree, but if I can easily see the fraud going on, and see how easy it is to benefit from it (like I just even showed you), perhaps when I say something, I am not being incorrect.

[Furunculus]

If there would some one like myself running the country, there wouldn't be a boom-bust through our creation.

On the other hand, America has caused all the world-wide great depressions, on purpose.

lol, didn't brown make the same claim...............?

and lol, really just; lol.

[Furunculus]

america also has problems:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance...ern-world-imf/

interesting article, worth a read.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Odd, isn't it, how everyone seems to have significant financial problems except the bankers to whom we handed over all our money.

There's a lesson in there somewhere; if only I could put my finger on it.

[Beskar]

Odd, isn't it, how everyone seems to have significant financial problems except the bankers to whom we handed over all our money.

There's a lesson in there somewhere; if only I could put my finger on it.

You might have some one reply "lol" at you over such a comment, to denounce you, or they tell you how those bankers were hard-working men and women, and you should be happy for them, for making money in a recession they caused.

[Furunculus]

You might have some one reply "lol" at you over such a comment, to denounce you, or they tell you how those bankers were hard-working men and women, and you should be happy for them, for making money in a recession they caused.

lol, so it was nothing to do with our political masters keeping interest rates too low at the same time as encouraging 'social' lending to the un-creditworthy?

[Furunculus]

Odd, isn't it, how everyone seems to have significant financial problems except the bankers to whom we handed over all our money.

There's a lesson in there somewhere; if only I could put my finger on it.

any reaction other than; "lets encourage them to make as much damned money as they possibly can!" is thoroughly ridiculous.

the EU's recent rules on Hedge Funds are totally inept, utterly incompetent, and borderline retarded.

the EU is 300m strong economic zone with an rapidly aging population, extremely poor prospects for long-term growth, an unworkable monetary union, totally lacking in a unified Demos that will accept a reality of a transfer-union....................................... and its reaction is to add MORE regulation and taxation to business!

the EU is not the future, it is currently a slow and painful death where standards of living will slip to that of Romania with the lifteime of children alive today.

in comparison, China and India represent an economic zone of 2.5b strong with a growing population and a compound GDP growth rate that averages around 10%, who are exactly the kind of markets that have a strong and growing demand for the goods and services of an advanced western nation that isn't fearfully huddling inside a tariff barrier in fear of the big bad world whilst it willfully ignores its diminishing resources.

52% of the value of good and services traded by Britain currently go to the continent, I absolutely GUARENTEE that that figure will shrink massively in the coming generation, provided we stay out of the federalist circle-jerk that is EU's fetish with ever-deeper-union.

[gaelic cowboy]

lol, so it was nothing to do with our political masters keeping interest rates too low at the same time as encouraging 'social' lending to the un-creditworthy?

Goes for big long post and then gives up and says NO to your thesis.

[gaelic cowboy]

@ furunculus

Our political masters do what there told and its not the voters telling them allow more lending but big banks etc etc. Go google the meeting between the big banks and the US politicians were they basically said let us lend out more so we can make more as we have this new scheme which spreads the risk. How quaint it all seems now a debt became an asset overnight.

[Furunculus]

i don't deny that there have been dodgy financial instruments, the key part of my question that you should focus on here was the scepticism that only teh evil bankers were responsible for the melt-down.

[gaelic cowboy]

i don't deny that there have been dodgy financial instruments, the key part of my question that you should focus on here was the scepticism that only teh evil bankers were responsible for the melt-down.

Agreed

[gaelic cowboy]

I will try and post some data thats of interest with regard to Ireland I really don't see the point of posting a separate Irish thread.

Putting the brakes on rising prices helped to ease the pain yea Xbox 360 games are down

Few raised eyebrows at this one apparently recession over is over I will reserve judgement even if employment is a lagging indicator

[Furunculus]

encouraging articles for Ireland's part.

we can only hope the med nations see a similar bounce.

[gaelic cowboy]

We are basically about two years into a series of spending cuts and reforms and the indicators are shall we say at least encouraging.

We are doing as much as is acceptable in todays terms as long as all the social partners knuckle down together we will pay back the debt.

However we may not get the chance to do that if our bond rates go up due to unforeseen circumstances like a euro member default.

However a default will not happen this year but I cannot speak for next year so fingers toes arms and legs crossed.

[Jolt]

Financial strongmen are also saying Portugal is going in the right direction. Estimates for the next year put the deficit at an acceptable level of 4.7%

[gaelic cowboy]

Financial strongmen are also saying Portugal is going in the right direction. Estimates for the next year put the deficit at an acceptable level of 4.7%

Yes in fact I have been reading a lot of the same thing lately about Portugal

[Beskar]

Furunculus, the reason those "countries" have such economical boosts is because they pay the working class and children £7 a week to make 1000 stacks of clothing which gets sold in other nations such as America for £20 each. Then put it in their economy figures to show the world how great they are and how GDP means everything.

Or, we could have a civilised society where the effects of wage-slavery is significantly decreased so we can live meaningful lives.

[Furunculus]

or you could realise that they are going to keep on paying £7/week for cheap manufactured goods, an act that will erode the living standards of fat western countries who think they can still make cheap manufactured goods.

there are two choices:

1) protection of moribund industries which will see our living standards decline to that of Romania within the lifetime of children alive today, hell, don't take my word for it just have a look at Wallonia.
2) compete on innovation of services and technology to become a supplier of said innovative high value goods, to those very same developing countries, and preserve living standards at a similar level to that enjoyed today.

one of those options will allow your empathetic and moralising yoghurt knitters to keep on funding your disability benefits and your marriage guidance counsellors, and the other won't, care to guess which is which?

adapt or die*, that simple.


* read: live in poverty

[gaelic cowboy]

@Beskar I would not heed the low wages as much as the fact they use most the money to buy dollars, euro and the other big currency countries. By doing this they can allow us to continue to consume there products but this can only continue if they do not spend more on social services an education etc. By doing this they can undercut us in manufacturing and help us to buy there products and they can give there people jobs to qwell unrest

[gaelic cowboy]

or you could realise that they are going to keep on paying £7/week for cheap manufactured goods, an act that will erode the living standards of fat western countries who think they can still make cheap manufactured goods.

there are two choices:

1) protection of moribund industries which will see our living standards decline to that of Romania within the lifetime of children alive today, hell, don't take my word for it just have a look at Wallonia.
2) compete on innovation of services and technology to become a supplier of said innovative high value goods, to those very same developing countries, and preserve living standards at a similar level to that enjoyed today.

one of those options will allow your empathetic and moralising yoghurt knitters to keep on funding your disability benefits and your marriage guidance counsellors, and the other won't, care to guess which is which?

adapt or die*, that simple.


* read: live in poverty

Just one point I would like to make when was the last time you talked to an English person on a telephone helpline services can be outsourced too. And the trend would be to outsource higher ones too the trouble with moving to higher a value economy is it will result in very high unemployment and could disappear overnight with no spread of industry. If a country can it should try to automate its industry more and more which requires investment simply giving up will result in no jobs eventually

[Furunculus]

Just one point I would like to make when was the last time you talked to an English person on a telephone helpline services can be outsourced too. And the trend would be to outsource higher ones too the trouble with moving to higher a value economy is it will result in very high unemployment and could disappear overnight with no spread of industry. If a country can it should try to automate its industry more and more which requires investment simply giving up will result in no jobs eventually

there is no alternative to the rise of the megalith developing nations but to move ever higher up the value chain, for only by producing high value goods and services will we maintain a level of relative wealth that will preserve living standards as they are.

high value services means high value, not some pleb working in an O2 customer support call-centre. notably london is the place where 85% of Euros are traded, not to mention 95% of metals.

high value goods means high value, not some brummie car-plant churning out cheap and cheerful family cars by the tens of thousand. what we are talking about is high-level engineering backed up by strong R&D.

adapt or die.