Cyprus-Forum.com

[cyprusgrump]

The problem is one of how much we "benefit" from this and this is where it varies from person to person. Most people do not have a problem with capitalism at some level - mine is on having it completely unregulated, as it has become.

GIG when you say you have a problem with unregulared capitalism in which ways would have it regulated?...

my thoyghts, i would prefer direction and not regulation...
for example, force investments that benefit a nation rather than restrict it...ie...protectionism rather than large corps, read modern day slave trading under the guise of wto....a win win situation for state and capitalism...

capitalism in itself is innovation...some bad but generally pretty good...end of the day it needs re-channeling...

Nothing novel. We need to redress the balance of corporate power over government (people) power.

- Until I have more time to participate in squabbles you can extract an essence from here:

http://www.governmentisgood.com/articles.php?aid=13

Indeed the government is too big and has too much power!

Question: Has Cyprus (or any EU member) reduced the size of government since joining the EU?

The answer is obviously no... yet most of our laws and regulations are now produced by the EU.

So we are paying for the EU and then another complete government which does little more than rubber-stamp EU regulations...

Plus of course thousands of civil servants that have to implement and monitor ridiculous EU rules on things like re-using jam jars.

[GreekIslandGirl]

In a democracy, governments are put there by the people, to represent the majority of the people. I don't see anything wrong with that concept. Other than that, democracy, especially in new constructs like the EU, takes a little while to finely tune. The tide of unregulated democracy has sprung from the Republicans in the US and the Thatcherites in the UK and both these groups have been loosening accountability by banks and corporations. Hence the fine mess we are in now!

[wyoming cowboy]

"....The 5-to-4 decision was a vindication, the majority said, of the First Amendment’s most basic free speech principle — that the government has no business regulating political speech. The dissenters said that allowing corporate money to flood the political marketplace would corrupt democracy..." but the supreme court gave the corp. the power to donate as much money as they want to any election



http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/po ... d=all&_r=0

[cyprusgrump]

In a democracy, governments are put there by the people, to represent the majority of the people. I don't see anything wrong with that concept. Other than that, democracy, especially in new constructs like the EU, takes a little while to finely tune. The tide of unregulated democracy has sprung from the Republicans in the US and the Thatcherites in the UK and both these groups have been loosening accountability by banks and corporations. Hence the fine mess we are in now!

The problem with the EU is that it is most specifically not democratic in any way.

Sure, the people get to vote for their MEP but the parliament is just a talking shop.

The decisions are made by people you do not elect and cannot remove.

And as for blaming Thatcher for the World's problems - what an epic fail!

May I remind you who was in charge (and had been for thirteen years) during the crash?

[supporttheunderdog]

An intersting turn of phrase by GIG- unregulated democracy -

However Governments, socialist/communist ones in particular, are very good at spending other people' money, but seldom very good at creating wealth.

[cyprusgrump]

An intersting turn of phrase by GIG- unregulated democracy -

However Governments, socialist/communist ones in particular, are very good at spending other people' money, but seldom very good at creating wealth.

Exactly!

I can't help but think that GIG years for the time when the state controls everything we say and do....

[wyoming cowboy]

i think by the statement of "unregulated democracy", is that people are not as informed or interested in what is going on around them a lot less now then before. their politicians are more distant and the society we have created keeps us too busy to bother with government and the power it has over us. As mentioned above with big corporations being able to donate as much money as possible to any election, should have caused an uproar but barely a whimper and then forgotten.

[cyprusgrump]

i think by the statement of "unregulated democracy", is that people are not as informed or interested in what is going on around them a lot less now then before. their politicians are more distant and the society we have created keeps us too busy to bother with government and the power it has over us. As mentioned above with big corporations being able to donate as much money as possible to any election, should have caused an uproar but barely a whimper and then forgotten.

I'm totally behind your definition of the problem with 'democracy' as we have it now. However, I'm not at all sure that is what GIG means.

The ruling political elite have got totally out of control and (in the UK at least) created a country of dependant drones to vote for them.

The last Labour government even won a case in a court of law proving that they have no obligation whatsoever to produce what they promised in their pre-election manifesto!

And lets not forget Cameron's 'cast iron guarantee' of a referendum on the EU...

As for the donations... As I said earlier, when the government seeks to control the market it is inevitable that the market will try to cosy up to government to seek favours. If you reduce the size of government and their interference the problem goes away.

[GreekIslandGirl]

Well, well, well!

"Unregulated democracy". What interesting analyses, above, by all of you.

I did of course mean to say/type "unregulated capitalism" as that was why I was talking about the Republicans and Thatcherites (who despite CG's grumps, was responsible for sowing the seeds of where we are now). But this slip could be Freudian in that I do feel (as you all seem to above too) that democracy is not wide-spread enough and limited by bureaucracy or lobbying. Democracy, so precious, does seem to need regulation to maintain it.

[cyprusgrump]

Well, well, well!

"Unregulated democracy". What interesting analyses, above, by all of you.

I did of course mean to say/type "unregulated capitalism" as that was why I was talking about the Republicans and Thatcherites (who despite CG's grumps, was responsible for sowing the seeds of where we are now). But this slip could be Freudian in that I do feel (as you all seem to above too) that democracy is not wide-spread enough and limited by bureaucracy or lobbying. Democracy, so precious, does seem to need regulation to maintain it.

Thatcher started it of course...

Here is an interesting quote that I just stumbled on this morning...

The astutely spread myth that the financial crisis resulted from ‘unregulated markets’ rather than constant expansion of state fiat money and artificially cheap credit from state central banks, has opened the door for more aggressive regulatory interference in markets.

You should read the whole thing here.

Surprisingly, he doesn't attribute any of the blame to Thatcher....