I must say, he's surprised me. A couple of years ago he was the picture of everything I hated about my half of the species. Now I think he's on the ball, and I like him.

Wait, why does what I think matter again?

brand is a prat. yes the banks got away from the huge financial mess they caused and its very frustrating how they can get away with it and yet gen public get bank charges for the most stupid of things.

but.. the rioters were idiots too who have affected the communities which were there own too and putting many people out of work and homes themselves too with the the same greed that the bankers have

Commercial banks, investment banks and hedge funds all serve a purpose in the economy, while the rioters were just causing senseless mayhem. It's an argument rooted in populism not logic.

The second point has some merit, but ultimately you can't link rolling back social programs to encouraging selfishness.

@westy Is that sarcastic sarcasm?

@RedSky So what do you imagine are the consequences of rolling back social programs?

These people are disenfranchised, disheartened and feel powerless to change their lives as a result of a lack of education, social investment and employment opportunities that would give them some meaning (though the last is harder to ascribe as the government's fault). You make a person feel powerless long enough and bad things happen. You make a lot of people feel powerless for long enough and shit like this happens.

this has nothing to do w/ the riots, but if you like the tone of this video:
http://t.co/WKeRWa9

From Massive Attack’s Facebook page:

In context with the complicit support of the government, the banks looted the nation’s wealth while destroying countless small businesses and brought the whole economy to its knees in a covert, clean manner, rather like organised crime.

Our reaction was to march and wave banners and then bail them out. These kids would have to riot and steal every night for a year to run up a bill equivalent to the value of non-paid tax big business has ‘avoided’ out of the economy this year alone.

They may not articulate their grievances like the politicians that condemn them but this is absolutely political. As for the ‘mindless violence’… is there anything more mindless than the British taxpayer quietly paying back the debts of others while contributing bullets to conflicts that we have absolutely no understanding of?

It’s mad, sad and scary when we have to take to the streets to defend our homes and businesses from angry thieving kids, but where are the police and what justice is ever done when the mob is dressed in pin stripe.

Fight the power by all means, kids, but not by fucking up your neighbours' livelihoods. The number one victims here are not the gvt or the richies, but the poor members of your community, in the same shit as you, trying to make a living that you just destroyed.

I had this sentiment as well. When I heard the Sony warehouse went up in flames at first I laughed - fucking awesome. But, then I was informed that a lot of the content in that warehouse were from big indies like Domino, Rough Trade... and I changed my mind. If they would have just fucked up the banks it would have been all good.

>> ^hpqp:

Fight the power by all means, kids, but not by fucking up your neighbours' livelihoods. The number one victims here are not the gvt or the richies, but the poor members of your community, in the same shit as you, trying to make a living that you just destroyed.

I hope these asshats are better at analysing American issues than this drivel. The 'looters' weren't protesting shit, we've had lecturers and uni students and kids of bankers as well as the usual suspects... Simple fact is the police lost control and people realised there was a chance for free stuff, mostly dumb kids who will now stand a small chance of getting nailed. In the meantime the wanker bankers keep driving the economy forward, not a great idea to kill them then. Shit it must be nice to see everything in 2 dimensions.

@westy

I'm not implying that they purely make money.

Investment banks primarily serve to list private firms on the stock market through IPOs.

Hedge funds don't gamble shares, they trade them based on discrepancies between actual price and fundamentals, they contribute by providing insight on stock performance and thereby keep listed prices more stable. They also incidentally had just about nothing to do with the GFC.

Either way they are both pretty beneficial to a functioning economy.

Every business tries to game the system. Your local butcher tries to minimize his tax burden just as much any other business.

@lampishthing

I don't disagree with what you're saying, but my main issue was that it's one thing to say a lack of social programs will lead to an increase in disenfranchisement, delinquency and violence in general. It's a wholly different thing to directly link it to acting selfishly, which as far as I'm concerned is implying a lack of individual responsibility and a validation of those actions.

The thrust of his argument I got essentially boiled down to a tit-for-tat "well the bankers are being selfish so it explains your actions" which is frankly both irresponsible and pretty juvenile.

@RedSky Then I guess our only difference is that I thought he was making the larger argument in a subtler manner. Though that may have partly been due to my own opinions before reading.

http://videosift.com/video/London-Riots-An-Explanation-not-an-Excuse

Wait, what? Cenk is blaming Cameron / Thatcher?

A huge number of these people have lived the majority of their lives under Labour (for non-UK'ers, the prime ministers above are Conservative) which is where their attitude to community would have been fostered.

You reckon the 11 / 12 year olds are thinking how terrible the bankers are?

@westy

Yes nearly every business tries to game the system that's the point of capitalism and that's why it will always fail ( im not on about simply ballencing your books and deprecaiting assets and playing that sytem , evan though that is gamed in the same way) I'm on about the system at large , surely you can see the difference between a butcher and a company that offers high interest loans to desperate people , when instead of offering the loan the ethical thing would be for them to tell them to contact citizens advice ?

I don't think capitalism (by which I mean a regulated but moderately free market) will fail as (at least so far) it's provided the best manner of funneling people's naturally selfish/nepotistic tendencies in a productive way.

Let's be clear here, generally brokers were responsible for writing subprime loans with botched (or outright false) assessments of income and capacity to pay. These brokers were essentially gaming the investment banks (like Bear Sterns) into buying fraudulent securitised loans. Bear Sterns along with Lehman Brothers didn't survive and many other banks got taken over. There was clear motivation for them to perform more due diligence and they paid for their mistakes by going bankrupt or being taken over. The credit rating agencies and the insurers who backed CDOs also had poor judgement. My point is, the people who benefited from writing these bad loans weren't the banks.

thats the piont im making , you can have companies that game the system but also privde a service but the people that have caused this economic crisis are people that are at the pinicale of gaming the system and do not care to provide a service and purely participate to game the system purely exist to make money at whatever cost to society.

They're not gaming the system if they're going bankrupt. You know as well as I do that banks borrow money from those with savings and selectively lend them out to generally good investments thus creating economic growth and jobs. Let's not get carried away with populism here.

luckily we have people that are ethical and don't just think of the profit bottom line , but in general you will see that a good proportion of those successful at business and profiting are ones that couldn't give a shit about other people or there effect on the environment.

The difference between the butcher and a large financial institution is size. If this was a national specialty chain business, you can bet that they would be lobbying their congressman and receiving favors and payouts. Don't get me wrong, I'm not for crony capitalism and I understand that banks weild considerable leverage over the economy and politicians. They should be more regulated commensurate to their significance and intractability with the economy, particularly shadow banking system (securitisation of loans and credit derivatives) should be regulated to prevent crises. This is a failure of regulation though, not a failure of banking in general. As I mentioned, every large industry/corporate body curries favors.

"Either way they are both pretty beneficial to a functioning economy"

so the bankers that turned a blind eye to the toxit assits were beneficail to the econimy ?

how about the lobiests and deregulation that made it possable ?
what about the real estate agents that knew the people they were selling the houses to could not maintain the mortgage?

What about the marketeers that designed the sales materail to obscure the mortgage rates to hide the fact that they would increase and specifcaly designed the brouchers and trained the sales teams to exploit unknowlageable people ?

No they weren't and many of their businesses went out of business. These are all issues of regulation. Corporations (as opposed to say partnerships) are by legal design geared towards maximising profit. If you come in with expectations that any corporation will not do this, you are making flawed assumptions.

"hedge funds don't gamble shares, they trade them based on discrepancies between actual price and fundamentals"

Defanitoin of Gambling from Wikipedia - "Gambling is the wagering of money or something of material value (referred to as "the stakes") on an event with an uncertain outcome with the primary intent of winning additional money and/or material goods."

something doesn't have to have unfavourable odds to be considered gambling for example there are many professional gamblers that make a living of horse betting , and in that exact same way there are many people that profestinaly gamble on the stock market , and I would argue that they are themselfs not providing a use to socity. I would however contrast that against sum-one that invests in a company because that company is doing good or employs many people or is developing beneficial technpligy.

the problem is in general capitalism in its current form is fucked , and i belive we need to move towards something that is what I would describe as a

"democratic socialist capitalist system" where we have as free a market as possable and that is achived through democratic regulation guided by socialist princapels. so you try to give every citizen as equal a chance as possible at having free will and succeeding in what they want to do.

the current system allows the top 10% fantastic freedom and chances but at the expense of the majorty of people.

It's not a wager of value, it's a transfer of value. Which is critically what makes it different from gambling. If you have agricultural produce and you want to hedge the risk that your harvest will go down in value when it comes to fruition, it's typically an investment bank/hedge fund/commercial bank that takes the counterparty position. Without someone taking that counterparty position, you couldn't eliminate your risk of a fall in prices. If someone buys a newly listed share of your company, they're contributing to your capacity to invest and pay wages. During the process of gambling before someone is declared the winner, there is no value being created. That's a pretty crucial difference. The main point is though that banking creates value, hopefully I've already illustrated that beforehand.

I don't disagree with what you're saying at the end, but as far as I'm concerned you should be resentful towards campaign finance rules. Instead, it's like trying to treat the symptom not the cause.

So let’s just sum it all up…

The United Kingdom has one of the biggest social hammocks on the planet. Universal health care, permanent unemployment, universal retirement payments, and public education? Check. And the yobs are rioting because they don’t have enough entitlements.

Well – clearly the problem is easily solved. The government just needs to seize all wealth so it can be fairly redistributed via socialized programs. At that point the yobs will become happy and line up like good little comrades at the government feeding stations. After all, every government that does this kind of thing has nothing but happy citizens who don’t riot, complain, or live in total poverty and oppression. Look at places like Cuba, North Korea, Germany, Greece, Italy, France, Spain, Portugal, and on and on. No government in history that siezes private capital has EVER just wasted, squandered, and frittered it away. All the social programs that governments run are fair, efficient, and wise stewards of the public trust. I mean, there’s not a socialist government on the PLANET that dribbles out its revenues to the tune of pennies on the dollar. No social system leaves the public with neither freedom OR financial prosperity.

:eyeroll:

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

So let’s just sum it all up…:eyeroll:


The problem as I see it doesn't come from a lack of social programs, although I know that's what a lot of people are saying. The problem comes from the fact that the financial sector seems to just do whatever they want without ever experiencing anything but a little negative press. All the financial back-stabbing and theft that goes on, even though it's seemingly on paper, affects all of us. For every dollar "earned/stolen" through trading and shady investment, real people actually suffer. But it's never the offender. Look at Madoff, people knew for years that he was lying and scheming and stealing and nothing was done until absolutely no one could deny that he was. How do we expect people to act?

Look at Madoff, people knew for years that he was lying and scheming and stealing and nothing was done until absolutely no one could deny that he was. How do we expect people to act?

Now THAT is a much more fair and logical assessment than Russell's foolish brand of populism, or the typical neolib socialist rah-rah found on the Sift.

You're right. Citizens everywhere are angry when large companies, financial institutions, banks, or whatever other 'capitalist' source you care to name rakes in billions of dollars using shady, unethical tactics - but is able to skate away with only wrist slaps. Who isn't angry about stuff like that? I sure am. Contrary to what the average neolib may think - fiscal conservatives such as myself are not saying that 'big money' should not have to pay their fair share.

The problem is not the companies pulling these kinds of shenanigans though. The PROBLEM is that governments have an incestuous relationship with these big organizations, and are writing the laws (or ignoring them) in such a way as to create this tooth-gnashing dynamic. In the United States, the federal government's JOB (in fact its ONLY job) is to be a place where people can go to redress their grievences. Government is supposed to be the referree that only steps in the game when there is a foul - so to speak.

But that's not what happens in Britain, the US, or any of these other so-called 'social democracies'. What has happened is that the central governments in these nations have BECOME the 'big money' bad guys. The governments are the biggest providers of housing. The biggest providers of food. The biggest providers of money. The biggest providers of health care. The biggest providers of retirement. The biggest financial house. The biggest in just about everything. And yet at the same time they are the ones that write the laws that are supposed to be protecting the citizens from abuses. It is a huge conflict of interest.

The whole housing bubble was created not because banks suddenly came up with the brilliant idea of bundling mortgages into bigger deals to trade. It happened because the government repealed the LAW that prevented financial houses from doing that stuff. But why? Because government (Barney Frank) wanted UFFOWDUBBLE HOWSEING and wanted to use Freddie/Fannie to engineer it. But banks made no money loaning money to folks that couldn't afford a mortgage - so they came up with the whole bundling sceme to make it all work. Well - any idiot knew it couldn't last (except Frank of course) and pop goes the bubble. Where do the citizens go to 'redress their grievences'? The banks? They were ordered to make the bad loans by government? The government? You can't sue them. So the citizens get screwed, the banks have to be bailed out, and the government makes out like a bandit.

The answer is not bigger government and more taxes. The answer is smaller government, with limited powers and fewer responsibilities. And above all - government MUST be removed from the market equation. When government is both IN the market AND ALSO is in charge of picking the winners and losers - it will always pick itself. The perception of 'big money' getting away with crap only increases as government becomes stronger and stronger (as socialist governments always do).

Government must be 100% removed from the marketplace, and THEN it can serve its proper role as a recourse to appeal to for a redress of grievences and enforce proper restrictions on private organizations that engage in shenanigans.

@Winstonfield_Pennypacker

You're addressing two separate issues with one broad stroke.

The housing credit bubble was caused just as much by certain public institutions as it was private. The error on behalf on the parties involved was in misjudging expected defaults and in the moral hazard of entrusting mortgage brokers who had every incentive to lie to secure commissions.

Securitization is in and of itself not a bad idea and by your own admission it was a private invention (by investment banks). With the right due dilligence and management of risks, loans can be offloaded from commercial bank balance sheets to investors and the banks can then make additional loans (to credit worthy individuals) which generally benefits everyone.

The separate issue from all of this is how much you want to provide to citizens as a basic right. Personally I think this should extend extensively into basic food, shelter and medical assistance. Whether it's publicly or privately provided should be on a case by case basis. Some naturally monopolistic industries will gain nothing from being private as the competitive pressure that makes capitalism work will simply not be there.

If you don't agree with this that's fine but let's not conflate the two issues or pretend as if the GFC is somehow justification for the latter.

The housing credit bubble was caused just as much by certain public institutions as it was private.

This is true. I've always said that the housing bubble was a THREE PARTY problem. 1. Government changed the laws (IE created the environment). 2. Finaincial institutions set out the banquet (provided the cash). 3. Businesss & citizens borrowed money like idiots. All three of these groups were necessary to create the bubble. But all too often, especially in neolib circles, only one group gets the blame (financial guys) while the government and the public get a free pass.

The separate issue from all of this is how much you want to provide to citizens as a basic right.

Depends on what you mean by that. I totally disagree that the federal government has ANY role in the lives of citizens except as (A) a place to go to redress greivences and (B) national defense (including enforcing of borders). That's it. Everything else should be done as the state and local level. If citizens want to have government take care of food, shelter, and medicine then that should take place at the state level where it is more directly monitored and where abuses can be punished more directly at the ballot box. I don't have a problem with government stepping into such areas. I have a problem with FEDERAL government doing it. Federal programs have proven to be inefficient, ineffective, and hopelessly cumbered by corruption, waste, and cronyism. Time to ditch the 'one state' solutions which are so clearly failing and return to a more local, privatized, federalist approach. Socialist systems result in the mobs and yobs we see in the UK, and should be avoided at all costs.