IMF fears 'social explosion' from world jobs crisis

[Love As Arson]

A joint IMF-ILO report said 30m jobs had been lost since the crisis, three quarters in richer economies. Global unemployment has reached 210m. "The Great Recession has left gaping wounds. High and long-lasting unemployment represents a risk to the stability of existing democracies," it said.
The study cited evidence that victims of recession in their early twenties suffer lifetime damage and lose faith in public institutions. A new twist is an apparent decline in the "employment intensity of growth" as rebounding output requires fewer extra workers. As such, it may be hard to re-absorb those laid off even if recovery gathers pace. The world must create 45m jobs a year for the next decade just to tread water.
Olivier Blanchard, the IMF's chief economist, said the percentage of workers laid off for long stints has been rising with each downturn for decades but the figures have surged this time.
"Long-term unemployment is alarmingly high: in the US, half the unemployed have been out of work for over six months, something we have not seen since the Great Depression," he said.
Spain has seen the biggest shock, with unemployment near 20pc. Britain's rate has risen from 5.3pc to 7.8pc over the last two years, a slightly better record than the OECD average. This contrasts with the 1970s and early 1980s when Britain was notoriously worse. UK jobless today totals 2.48m.
Mr Blanchard called for extra monetary stimulus as the first line of defence if "downside risks to growth materialise", but said authorities should not rule out another fiscal boost, despite debt worries. "If fiscal stimulus helps avoid structural unemployment, it may actually pay for itself," he said.
"Most advanced countries should not tighten fiscal policies before 2011: tightening sooner could undermine recovery," said the report, rebuking Britain's Coalition, Germany's austerity hawks, and US Republicans. Under French socialist Strauss-Kahn, the IMF has assumed a Keynesian flavour.
The report skirts the contentious issue of whether globalisation lets companies engage in "labour arbitrage", locating plant in low-wage economies such as China to ship products back to the West. Nor does it grapple with the trade distortions caused by China's currency policy, except to call on "surplus countries" to play their part in rebalancing.
The IMF said there may be a link between rising inequality within Western economies and deflating demand.
Historians say the last time that the wealth gap reached such skewed extremes was in 1928-1929. Some argue that wealth concentration may cause investment to outstrip demand, leading to over-capacity. This can trap the world in a slump.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/8000561/IMF-fears-social-explosion-from-world-jobs-crisis.html

[ParkwayTom]

Cool story bro.

[caveBEAR]

Cool story bro.

Fuck off, twat.

[ParkwayTom]

Fuck off, twat.

What? I think this is a super cool story. Looks like everyone else did too from all the feedback. Or maybe you should take your bullshit to a website that cares.

[caveBEAR]

What? I think this is a super cool story. Looks like everyone else did too from all the feedback. Or maybe you should take your bullshit to a website that cares.

He posted that story two hours ago. It's Monday, it's around 4PM (eastern time), and the politics forum is notoriously slow.

Fuck off, you twat. If you have nothing to bring to the table, then go raise your post count somewhere else.


Of course, if I didn't understand the article, I'd probably have a snippy comment, too.

[Theseventhson]

What? I think this is a super cool story. Looks like everyone else did too from all the feedback. Or maybe you should take your bullshit to a website that cares.

Why are you here?

[ParkwayTom]

He posted that story two hours ago. It's Monday, it's around 4PM (eastern time), and the politics forum is notoriously slow.

Fuck off, you twat. If you have nothing to bring to the table, then go raise your post count somewhere else.


Of course, if I didn't understand the article, I'd probably have a snippy comment, too.

Not really worried about my post count dude. Considering this is a forum, I just figured I'd say what I wanted. Good thing you were a big kid and let it go though. As far as the article goes, its not too hard to understand. What is hard to understand though is how you've made me saying "cool story bro" into a retarded internet argument. I'm done.

[caveBEAR]

Not really worried about my post count dude. Considering this is a forum, I just figured I'd say what I wanted. Good thing you were a big kid and let it go though. As far as the article goes, its not too hard to understand. What is hard to understand though is how you've made me saying "cool story bro" into a retarded internet argument. I'm done.

Like, you're fucking off?

[Theseventhson]

Not really worried about my post count dude. Considering this is a forum, I just figured I'd say what I wanted. Good thing you were a big kid and let it go though. As far as the article goes, its not too hard to understand. What is hard to understand though is how you've made me saying "cool story bro" into a retarded internet argument. I'm done.

In the politics forum, we usually like to add to the conversation, instead of just being a douche. So, yeah, fuck off.

[ParkwayTom]

Like, you're fucking off?

Sure, whatever. Although I am gonna feel kinda bad now that you have nothing to obsess over. Have a nice life.

[caveBEAR]

Sure, whatever. Although I am gonna feel kinda bad now that you have nothing to obsess over. Have a nice life.

You as well, twat.

[Love As Arson]

Anyway, I think it is interesting that one of the leading institutions in modern capitalism is admitting what crisis can do to people.

[caveBEAR]

Anyway, I think it is interesting that one of the leading institutions in modern capitalism is admitting what crisis can do to people.

This is the part that caught my eye;

"Long-term unemployment is alarmingly high: in the US, half the unemployed have been out of work for over six months, something we have not seen since the Great Depression," he said.

That's insane. I don't know how a majority of people can just downplay the entire crisis.

[mcm1610]

That's interesting. I've read a few times that people who "come of age" during economically poor times tend to be stronger supporters of social welfare and government support nets, etc. I haven't come across the argument that "they lose faith in public institutions".

[Love As Arson]

That's interesting. I've read a few times that people who "come of age" during economically poor times tend to be stronger supporters of social welfare and government support nets, etc. I haven't come across the argument that "they lose faith in public institutions".
Well, if those social institutions are being cut back, then I can see how they might lose faith in them. Especially these days, when the government is asking more from them, in terms of frugality, than the individuals that actually caused this mess.

[caveBEAR]

I hope people don't lose faith in government after all this shit, they need to lose faith in government's recent lack of oversight and regulation. Government's only a 'bad thing' if we allow it to be.

[DrStrong]

It really is fascinating that there is so much of a political following on a music based website. I mean, the word "punk" is right in the url!!

[Theseventhson]

Wait, what?

[Simulcast]

I hope people don't lose faith in government after all this shit, they need to lose faith in government's recent lack of oversight and regulation. Government's only a 'bad thing' if we allow it to be.

I think the Tea Party movement highlights the people's lack of faith in governement. Government becomes a bad thing when it is allowed to function unchecked. I believe this is why our government has been relatively successful compared to much of the rest of the world. We have systems in place to insure against a runaway government train.

Idealism at it's finest I know, but there it is.

[Love As Arson]

I think the Tea Party movement highlights the people's lack of faith in governement. Government becomes a bad thing when it is allowed to function unchecked. I believe this is why our government has been relatively successful compared to much of the rest of the world. We have systems in place to insure against a runaway government train.

Idealism at it's finest I know, but there it is.
It isn't idealism, it is just false.

[Simulcast]

It isn't idealism, it is just false.

I don't know about that. A limited government was the intention of the founders, was it not?

[Love As Arson]

I don't know about that. A limited government was the intention of the founders, was it not?
Nope. The intention was to create a nation which worked best for the white, merchant class. In fact, America was built on massive government intervention. So, for example, the displacement and genocide of Native Americans and the slave trade, which were all enshrined by the state, made it possible for the economy to be developed and industrial society to eventually be built.

[Simulcast]

Nope. The intention was to create a nation which worked best for the white, merchant class. In fact, America was built on massive government intervention. So, for example, the displacement and genocide of Native Americans and the slave trade, which were all enshrined by the state, made it possible for the economy to be developed and industrial society to eventually be built.

Seems like less governemnt is the answer to our problems then.

[mcm1610]

Or just not a government based on racism.

[zion the lion]

You as well, twat.

That whole thing with you and him was a little bit ridiculous, on both sides.

[bNz719]

"The world must create 45m jobs a year for the next decade just to tread water."

Just to get some perspective, about how many jobs are created per year?

[ambulance]

That's interesting. I've read a few times that people who "come of age" during economically poor times tend to be stronger supporters of social welfare and government support nets, etc. I haven't come across the argument that "they lose faith in public institutions".

I would think that argument would only be applicable if a stable democracy has already been set in place showing the ability to provide for these welfare programs but...

Well, if those social institutions are being cut back, then I can see how they might lose faith in them. Especially these days, when the government is asking more from them, in terms of frugality, than the individuals that actually caused this mess.

...like he said, if these institutions already exist and are cut back, one might lose faith in the ability for government to provide for its citizens. Which makes me worry how this will effect newly formed democracies in third world countries more so than those that have already been established. I'm sure unemployment in places like Africa, where there has already been struggle for legitimate government, will have harsh side effects if it ends up having a large impact on the young generations worldview like the article suggests. :\

[caveBEAR]

It really is fascinating that there is so much of a political following on a music based website. I mean, the word "punk" is right in the url!!

Cool story, bro.

I think the Tea Party movement highlights the people's lack of faith in governement. Government becomes a bad thing when it is allowed to function unchecked. I believe this is why our government has been relatively successful compared to much of the rest of the world. We have systems in place to insure against a runaway government train.

Idealism at it's finest I know, but there it is.

Not really. A frightening amount of Tea Partiers just want limited government in the form of no welfare, no unemployment, no gun control, etc. They have no problem with the government intervening on the rights of other Americans, especially towards homosexuals and Muslims. It's much less 'idealism' and much more 'bigotry', but as Love As Arson already pointed out, that lines up pretty perfectly with what the founders wanted, which is, in turn, exactly what the Tea Party says they want.

At least they're vaguely honest.

Or just not a government based on racism.

:appl:

That whole thing with you and him was a little bit ridiculous, on both sides.

I'm sick of the Personal Life bullshit this forum has been getting as of late. If he never comes back to post in here, then my job is done. Fuckin' twats.

[Simulcast]

Not really. A frightening amount of Tea Partiers just want limited government in the form of no welfare, no unemployment, no gun control, etc. They have no problem with the government intervening on the rights of other Americans, especially towards homosexuals and Muslims. It's much less 'idealism' and much more 'bigotry', but as Love As Arson already pointed out, that lines up pretty perfectly with what the founders wanted, which is, in turn, exactly what the Tea Party says they want.




I think your perception of the Tea Party stems a little too much from MSNBC.

[zion the lion]

I'm sick of the Personal Life bullshit this forum has been getting as of late. If he never comes back to post in here, then my job is done. Fuckin' twats.


I havent noticed. I havent been around here as much though. And I havent said the word twat since I was 13. But thanks for bringing it back to my vocabulary, its actually a word I can say around the kids without them even knowing its bad.

[caveBEAR]

I think your perception of the Tea Party stems a little too much from MSNBC.

I don't watch MSNBC. My views of the Tea Party come directly from the views and ideals that I have heard from Tea Party members. Where am I off? Which parts of that summation are so 'skewed by MSNBC' that they're false?

[Simulcast]

I don't watch MSNBC. My views of the Tea Party come directly from the views and ideals that I have heard from Tea Party members. Where am I off? Which parts of that summation are so 'skewed by MSNBC' that they're false?


That's funny, because I know Tea Party members who are active in campaigning, and no one would ever mistake them for bigots or racists. I don't think anecdotal evidence suffices though.

To answer your question, I think MSNBC sensationalizes the degree of a few loudmouths.

[caveBEAR]

That's funny, because I know Tea Party members who are active in campaigning, and no one would ever mistake them for bigots or racists.

That's the thing with Tea Party members I've met; you wouldn't really pin them for 'racists' or 'bigots' just by looking at them or listening to them for just a moment; however, many times I've pressed Tea Partiers for 'why' they want to repeal welfare, unemployment (generally any social program) it's less a worry on 'reckless government spending' (which is bullshit) and more, 'well, I don't know why we give them money when they could just get a job or stop doing drugs'.

There's racist undertones and innuendos in plenty of their views and ideals, and no one in the leadership is doing anything to stop those feelings; they, in turn, use their own innuendo to fuel those flames, such as the 'real America', 'us vs. them', and that bullshit.

I'm sure there are plenty of people who genuinely want to help and do good, who may not be bigoted at all, but I'm not so sure that there's anyone in the Tea Party who really knows what they're talking about; I feel like you can't possibly relate to the group and their ideals if you understand how government/the world works, and/or if you comprehend race and sociological issues in America.

[caveBEAR]

To answer your question, I think MSNBC sensationalizes the degree of a few loudmouths.

I think FoxNEWS being the most watched news network in America pretty much solidifies my opinions; there's not enough sensationalism for a network to hand out that would up-end the bullshit that constantly streams out of the mouths of people like Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly & Palin.

[Love As Arson]

Seems like less governemnt is the answer to our problems then.
My point is, there was never a period where government wasn't involved in stabilizing our economic system or furthering its reach. It is not neutral, it is oriented towards whatever ruling ideology is dominant in a particular epoch.

As the state arose from the need to keep class antagonisms in check, but also arose in the thick of the fight between the classes, it is normally the state of the most powerful, economically ruling class, which by its means becomes also the politically ruling class, and so acquires new means of holding down and exploiting the oppressed class. The ancient state was, above all, the state of the slave-owners for holding down the slaves, just as the feudal state was the organ of the nobility for holding down the peasant serfs and bondsmen, and the modern representative state is the instrument for exploiting wage-labor by capital.

[Love As Arson]

That's funny, because I know Tea Party members who are active in campaigning, and no one would ever mistake them for bigots or racists. I don't think anecdotal evidence suffices though.
When they say, "We need to take America back", and wax nostalgic about the 50's, I feel I have to point out that it wasn't good for those of us who are minorities.

[Scrandon]

That whole thing with you and him was a little bit ridiculous, on both sides.

No, it needs to be done so this forum does not turn into the shitstorm that is PL.

[deFobbed14yrs]

When they say, "We need to take America back", and wax nostalgic about the 50's, I feel I have to point out that it wasn't good for those of us who are minorities.

Here here. Plus the 50's started the high suicide rates in the country, so i don't think people in the 50's liked being in he 50's either.And they also had that surge of those cookie cutter house. No thank you to going back 60 years.

[Scrandon]

I'm pretty sure you have to have no idea what's going on to lose your faith in government as a result of this recession. I pretty much lost my faith in competitive corporations, despite my professors touting the wonders of competitive markets.

[Gumbyjag]

One would hope that in certainty of people losing faith in institutions (and government), they could restore faith in self-reliance.

[saysmydoctor]

No one is self-reliant.

[Regards]

I don't think its necessarily an issue of creating more jobs though. With the growing rate of population its going to eventually need to be a change in the system.

[Love As Arson]

One would hope that in certainty of people losing faith in institutions (and government), they could restore faith in self-reliance.
I agree. They should administer the institutions themselves.

I don't think its necessarily an issue of creating more jobs though. With the growing rate of population its going to eventually need to be a change in the system.
Perhaps something which allows workers to rest, with benefits, while employing other parts of the population. There can be a sort of exchange.

[Regards]

I agree. They should administer the institutions themselves.


Perhaps something which allows workers to rest, with benefits, while employing other parts of the population. There can be a sort of exchange.
An interesting idea, almost instead of sharing the wealth, share the work. Hmm. There would be a lot of physiological issues with that though. People identify themselves with their work, so while its a good thought on a macro level, I'm not sure it would work on a micro.

[Love As Arson]

An interesting idea, almost instead of sharing the wealth, share the work. Hmm. There would be a lot of physiological issues with that though. People identify themselves with their work, so while its a good thought on a macro level, I'm not sure it would work on a micro.
Sharing the wealth goes along with democratically administering the political/economic institutions in society. As for people identifying with their work, that tends to be in a disempowered sense, i.e., this job is terrible or I have no control of the policies they implement. Being able to actually affect decisions tends to make one feel more empowered, less alienated and invested in the well-being of themselves and their larger community.

[Anesthetic]

Why do people still have faith in the government? It's not our (and by our I mean working-class citizens) fault that the economy went to hell and can't find its way back.

I understand it takes a long time for the economy to completely bubble again, but in 2 years, Obama and all associated government members have done absolutely nothing of use.

[Anesthetic]

Sharing the wealth goes along with democratically administering the political/economic institutions in society. As for people identifying with their work, that tends to be in a disempowered sense, i.e., this job is terrible or I have no control of the policies they implement. Being able to actually affect decisions tends to make one feel more empowered, less alienated and invested in the well-being of themselves and their larger community.

And this could possibly be one of the most articulate and well-thought out posts I have ever read on here.

/cheers.

[The Indigo]

One would hope that in certainty of people losing faith in institutions (and government), they could restore faith in self-reliance.
Then let's get rid of the government.

[Scrandon]

Why do people still have faith in the government? It's not our (and by our I mean working-class citizens) fault that the economy went to hell and can't find its way back.

Not the government's fault either.

I understand it takes a long time for the economy to completely bubble again, but in 2 years, Obama and all associated government members have done absolutely nothing of use.
So wrong

[The Indigo]

Not the government's fault either.
The government allowed the financial de-regulations that allowed for the banking crisis. So yeah, it's just as much the government's fault as the banks.

[Scrandon]

The government allowed the financial de-regulations that allowed for the banking crisis. So yeah, it's just as much the government's fault as the banks.

De-regulation did not cause anything on it's own. It's like blaming a parent for when a child goes and fucks something up. If the free market advocates want to have that safety net, to be able to blame the government, then they deserve to be treated like children at all times.

[Love As Arson]

De-regulation did not cause anything on it's own. It's like blaming a parent for when a child goes and fucks something up.
The elimination of the Glass–Steagall Act can be directly tied to the financial crisis. Generally, these things are cyclical and the government, since it has an interest in perpetuating growth, contributes by propping up the bubbles that inevitably burst. Even with reforms, this will be the case, but there can be short term reforms that mitigate their effects.

[AbsentTruth]

This shit has been engineer by the bankers as was the great depression. Forget The Great Depression get ready for The Greatest (World) Depression. Shit is never going to get better until people stop being so apathetic and realize the root cause of the problem.

[The Indigo]

De-regulation did not cause anything on it's own. It's like blaming a parent for when a child goes and fucks something up. If the free market advocates want to have that safety net, to be able to blame the government, then they deserve to be treated like children at all times.
As Love as Arson said, the financial sector was deregulated for the sole purpose of giving the banks the freedom and inflate their wealth at the expense of the working class. That's why big banking financially supports so many of these politicians. Our politicians are directly to blame. Every major economist saw the crash coming and our politicians ignored them.

[Scrandon]

As Love as Arson said, the financial sector was deregulated for the sole purpose of giving the banks the freedom and inflate their wealth at the expense of the working class. That's why big banking financially supports so many of these politicians. Our politicians are directly to blame. Every major economist saw the crash coming and our politicians ignored them.

You can look at it that way if you want, but the way I see it, it's not the government's fault for allowing other people to fuck everything up. The people who did it should be held accountable alone. You could argue all day about things that could be prevented, but the government was not the institution that was actively destroying the economy.

[caveBEAR]

This shit has been engineer by the bankers as was the great depression. Forget The Great Depression get ready for The Greatest (World) Depression. Shit is never going to get better until people stop being so apathetic and realize the root cause of the problem.

:lol:

These posts have been so entertaining...keep them coming.

[Scrandon]

The elimination of the Glass–Steagall Act can be directly tied to the financial crisis. Generally, these things are cyclical and the government, since it has an interest in perpetuating growth, contributes by propping up the bubbles that inevitably burst. Even with reforms, this will be the case, but there can be short term reforms that mitigate their effects.

Responsible banking is completely compatible with the elimination of that law. It still took bankers to behave in a an irresponsible manner for the collapse to occur. The repeal of that law does not place blame in the hands of the government.

[Scrandon]

This shit has been engineer by the bankers as was the great depression. Forget The Great Depression get ready for The Greatest (World) Depression. Shit is never going to get better until people stop being so apathetic and realize the root cause of the problem.

Because bankers don't lose money during recessions, right?

[Love As Arson]

Responsible banking is completely compatible with the elimination of that law. It still took bankers to behave in a an irresponsible manner for the collapse to occur. The repeal of that law does not place blame in the hands of the government.
Bankers pushed for it and government gave in. Do you think they pushed for it for the purpose of being responsible? Do you think the government is unaware, considering previous crises we've experienced?

[The Indigo]

You can look at it that way if you want, but the way I see it, it's not the government's fault for allowing other people to fuck everything up. The people who did it should be held accountable alone. You could argue all day about things that could be prevented, but the government was not the institution that was actively destroying the economy.
The bankers pushed for the law for the sole purposes of inflating their own wealth through immoral activities that they weren't allowed to commit before. The government gave in to that knowingly when the Republicans were in power, considering many of their campaigns were funded by the banking industry. Our politicians knowingly gave the banks the freedom to take advantage of poor people. If you told me you wanted to use a gun to shoot people and offered me money to give you a gun and I sell it to you, I'm just as responsible as you are.

[Scrandon]

Bankers pushed for it and government gave in. Do you think they pushed for it for the purpose of being responsible? Do you think the government is unaware, considering previous crises we've experienced?

I don't know their motivations. I know it is possible to make money with responsible banking, they could have argued that they would be responsible and still make money. The mortgage market could have existed and been quite profitable without the abuse that occured.

[Scrandon]

The bankers pushed for the law for the sole purposes of inflating their own wealth through immoral activities that they weren't allowed to commit before. The government gave in to that knowingly when the Republicans were in power, considering many of their campaigns were funded by the banking industry. Our politicians knowingly gave the banks the freedom to take advantage of poor people. If you told me you wanted to use a gun to shoot people and offered me money to give you a gun and I sell it to you, I'm just as responsible as you are.

Okay I guess a Democrat president and Democrat majority in the Senate means that Republicans were in power. Who knew?

Oh and terrible analogy by the way, chief.

[jawstheme]

I don't know their motivations. I know it is possible to make money with responsible banking, they could have argued that they would be responsible and still make money. The mortgage market could have existed and been quite profitable without the abuse that occured.

Hahaha, it must be so nice to live in your world.

[Scrandon]

Hahaha, it must be so nice to live in your world.

I don't follow. You assume that the government was in some elaborate plan from the start? Keep in mind the fact that the majority of Americans supported de-regulation as well, it wasn't just special interest groups.

So how does the government allowing commercial and investment banks to operate as one necessarily lead to adjustable rate mortgages and NINA loans?

I must be missing something, but I don't see an elaborate scheme.

[jawstheme]

I don't follow. You assume that the government was in some elaborate plan from the start? Keep in mind the fact that the majority of Americans supported de-regulation as well, it wasn't just special interest groups.

So how does the government allowing commercial and investment banks to operate as one necessarily lead to adjustable rate mortgages and NINA loans?

I must be missing something, but I don't see an elaborate scheme.

I was referring to your idea of responsible banking and making money being collaborative.

[Scrandon]

I was referring to your idea of responsible banking and making money being collaborative.

So responsible banking is laughable? Okay.

Would you like to try to add anything constructive or are we done?

[The Indigo]

Okay I guess a Democrat president and Democrat majority in the Senate means that Republicans were in power. Who knew?

Oh and terrible analogy by the way, chief.
Haha, you really don't know what you're talking about, do you? The irresponsible actions of our bankers and the deregulation of financial activities took place mainly through powerful Republicans.

[Scrandon]

Haha, you really don't know what you're talking about, do you? The irresponsible actions of our bankers and the deregulation of financial activities took place mainly through powerful Republicans.

De-regulation has taken place under the leadership of both parties.

[The Indigo]

De-regulation has taken place under the leadership of both parties.
But is typically spearheaded and heavily pushed by Republicans. I'm not saying Democrats aren't to blame too though. I'm saying the opposite, in fact. Our government failed us. Worse than failing us, they knowing threw us to the wolves.

[Scrandon]

But is typically spearheaded and heavily pushed by Republicans. I'm not saying Democrats aren't to blame too though. I'm saying the opposite, in fact. Our government failed us. Worse than failing us, they knowing threw us to the wolves.

I understand de-regulation is more consistent with the Republican ideology, but you can't blame such a large-scale and steady process on one party.

[Love As Arson]

I don't know their motivations. I know it is possible to make money with responsible banking, they could have argued that they would be responsible and still make money. The mortgage market could have existed and been quite profitable without the abuse that occured.
You cannot be profitable and responsible in the capitalist system.

[Anesthetic]

Not the government's fault either.

So wrong

I like when people say that. It gets me excited. Because you have the audacity to mock my statement without providing an explanation on your own behalf.

Please, enlighten me as to what the fuck Obama and related administration has done that has had any benefit. Guess what? The unemployment rate in Ohio is still around 10% and that's higher than last year. Guess what? Unemployment is still the highest it's been. Guess what? The GM/Chrysler/AIG/whoever bailout did nothing!

Want more? I mean I'd love to hear your side on how he's helping us oh so much, because I don't see shit. I think the President is such a useless position.

[Scrandon]

I like when people say that. It gets me excited. Because you have the audacity to mock my statement without providing an explanation on your own behalf.
I didn't feel that ridiculous post warranted any serious counter-argument.

Please, enlighten me as to what the fuck Obama and related administration has done that has had any benefit. Guess what? The unemployment rate in Ohio is still around 10% and that's higher than last year. Guess what? Unemployment is still the highest it's been. Guess what? The GM/Chrysler/AIG/whoever bailout did nothing!

Want more? I mean I'd love to hear your side on how he's helping us oh so much, because I don't see shit. I think the President is such a useless position.
Unemployment would be at least two percent higher and those companies would not exist without the bailout and stimulus. If your definition of 'nothing' fits that description, then, by all means, go on.

Sidenote: Lookup "The Great Depression" and see what happens when the government does nothing. Spoiler alert: It was a hell of a lot worse than our two-year recession.

[Scrandon]

You cannot be profitable and responsible in the capitalist system.

That is so wrong. I will agree that oftentimes, maybe even a majority of the time, people have the opportunity to make more money with corrupt behavior. That does not mean that they were not making money to begin with.

[jawstheme]

So responsible banking is laughable? Okay.

Would you like to try to add anything constructive or are we done?

You conveniently left out the making money part. Responsible banking and banking for profit is a laughable combination in our capitalist system, and you are either overly optimistic or delusional if you think the two can go hand in hand.

[Scrandon]

You conveniently left out the making money part. Responsible banking and banking for profit is a laughable combination in our capitalist system, and you are either overly optimistic or delusional if you think the two can go hand in hand.

So if a bank collects interest on a loan they give out, how does that hurt society? People shouldn't have to pay to borrow money?

[Love As Arson]

That is so wrong. I will agree that oftentimes, maybe even a majority of the time, people have the opportunity to make more money with corrupt behavior. That does not mean that they were not making money to begin with.
The problem is, in this system, profit is the end. There is no other responsibility, except to the shareholders. So, if making up derivatives and corrupt practices turns a profit, they have fulfilled their duties. Aside from that, the drive for profit forces a situation in which there is a constant desire to extend or overproduce which lends itself to crisis.

So if a bank collects interest on a loan they give out, how does that hurt society? People shouldn't have to pay to borrow money?
Well, if a bank forecloses on someone's house because they have no money as a result of, say, medical bills, then that hurts society. It makes clear that money, not the needs of the people, are paramount.

[The Indigo]

I understand de-regulation is more consistent with the Republican ideology, but you can't blame such a large-scale and steady process on one party.
I just said I wasn't blaming one party.

[Nevuk]

For some reason I thought this would be about the world bank and the horrible things it does to people involving crop seeds. No idea why.

[Scrandon]

The problem is, in this system, profit is the end. There is no other responsibility, except to the shareholders. So, if making up derivatives and corrupt practices turns a profit, they have fulfilled their duties. Aside from that, the drive for profit forces a situation in which there is a constant desire to extend or overproduce which lends itself to crisis.


Well, if a bank forecloses on someone's house because they have no money as a result of, say, medical bills, then that hurts society. It makes clear that money, not the needs of the people, are paramount.
Of course, in a business relationship money comes first. I just argue that it doesn't lead to the decay of society. Government regulations serve as the conscience of the business, it's not necessary to overturn the system.

[Scrandon]

I just realized I was called idealistic by the guy advocating socialism.

[The Indigo]

Of course, in a business relationship money comes first. I just argue that it doesn't lead to the decay of society. Government regulations serve as the conscience of the business, it's not necessary to overturn the system.
The government regulations were removed, a move spearheaded by politicians who basically bought their way into office with the help of banks. The system (and by that I mean our government and capitalism) have failed before and they failed in this instance as well. I'm not sure what you're missing about this.

[Love As Arson]

Of course, in a business relationship money comes first. I just argue that it doesn't lead to the decay of society. Government regulations serve as the conscience of the business, it's not necessary to overturn the system.
Government regulation doesn't stop crises. It only mitigates them. Occasional crises are endemic to the system because there is a tendency to overproduce. Overproduction is destined to occur when production is directed towards profit and not need.

[Scrandon]

The government regulations were removed, a move spearheaded by politicians who basically bought their way into office with the help of banks. The system (and by that I mean our government and capitalism) have failed before and they failed in this instance as well. I'm not sure what you're missing about this.

Most people supported the change, the system can only do what the voters want. I know that's a very simple way of looking at it, but in this case, it holds true. Large-scale, slow and steady changes over a period of thirty years cannot occur without voter approval.

[Scrandon]

Government regulation doesn't stop crises. It only mitigates them. Occasional crises are endemic to the system because there is a tendency to overproduce. Overproduction is destined to occur when production is directed towards profit and not need.

The government can mitigate overproduction as well, via taxes. Our system isn't bad, it's just not being utilized properly.

[The Indigo]

Most people supported the change, the system can only do what the voters want. I know that's a very simple way of looking at it, but in this case, it holds true. Large-scale, slow and steady changes over a period of thirty years cannot occur without voter approval.
Then how do you explain Obama-care, which most Americans oppose? Many, many major economists predicted the bubble burst. For capitalism to work, the bubble has to burst occasionally and, almost always, the working class take the brunt of the damage. How is this system successful?

[caveBEAR]

Then how do you explain Obama-care, which most Americans oppose? Many, many major economists predicted the bubble burst. For capitalism to work, the bubble has to burst occasionally and, almost always, the working class take the brunt of the damage. How is this system successful?

Actually, when it's actually broken down and explained properly, a majority of Americans support 'Obama-Care'.

[Zeran]

I hope people don't lose faith in government after all this shit, they need to lose faith in government's recent lack of oversight and regulation. Government's only a 'bad thing' if we allow it to be.
agreed. more needs to be made of the positive impact government has had.
I don't know about that. A limited government was the intention of the founders, was it not?
that's debatable. the articles of confederation made a pretty small, weak government, and they realized that sucked so they made much stronger, federal government. as it was, there was at the beginning and has always been a struggle/debate between small and big government in the united states.
Actually, when it's actually broken down and explained properly, a majority of Americans support 'Obama-Care'.
it's the same thing when people say "government is bad" or "nothing good comes from the government", but when asked questions about specific policies the government has enacted (like building highways and such), many more people say these are good things.

[Love As Arson]

The government can mitigate overproduction as well, via taxes. Our system isn't bad, it's just not being utilized properly.
There will continue to be systemic crises. So, for example, companies want to increase profitability, so they make a vast amount of products, while simultaneously laying off a large portion of the workforce or depressing their wages. Now who is going to buy the products? At this point, there has been an extension of capital which is no longer profitable due to the internal logic of capital. The rate of profitability begins to fall, companies lay off even more workers which creates further under-consumption of the products which had been mass-produced. It is at this point that the crises occurs, where one has even more layoffs, companies going under, the sale of machinery and so on. This process is applicable to the most recent crisis we had:

How do you relate this picture of crisis you present to the system of capitalism itself?


AP: The housing crisis and the general economic situation in the country is almost a classic case of what Marx described as a crisis of overproduction. Marx said,

The ultimate reason for all real crises remains the poverty and restricted consumption of the masses, as opposed to the drive of capitalist production to develop productive forces as though only the absolute consuming power of society constituted their limit.



This means that, in their drive for profits, capitalists expand production almost without limits. That’s with their right hand. But with their left hand and also in their drive for profits, they do everything they can to keep down the wages and the consuming power of the worker. So they produce more and more, but workers can’t buy what they produce.

An economic crisis has been held off since 2001 by filling in the gap with debt. Working families have gotten deeper and deeper in debt, and now that the housing crisis has hit, people can no longer borrow any more money against the value of their homes. Not only do we have overproduction in housing – I talked about the 4 million unsold houses people are unable to afford – but an estimated $400 to $900 billion a year of purchasing power stands to be lost by consumers, just on the basis that they can no longer borrow against their homes. And so there is a real danger of the economy slipping into a steep and possibly prolonged recession, because people can’t afford to buy what they need.

http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/view/6209/