Cyprus-Forum.com

[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.

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....

But deregulation was central to her government!

Simply:

At the heart of Thatcherite economics were the following:

A belief in freeing up markets
De-regulation to encourage enterprise and efficiency
Reducing the influence of government

http://www.bized.co.uk/current/mind/2003_4/170504.htm

... and:

The financial deregulation monster that Margaret Thatcher unleashed

by NEWS SOURCES on OCTOBER 9, 2011

http://warincontext.org/2011/10/09/the- ... unleashed/

[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....

But deregulation was central to her government!

Simply:

At the heart of Thatcherite economics were the following:

A belief in freeing up markets
De-regulation to encourage enterprise and efficiency
Reducing the influence of government

http://www.bized.co.uk/current/mind/2003_4/170504.htm

... and:

The financial deregulation monster that Margaret Thatcher unleashed

by NEWS SOURCES on OCTOBER 9, 2011

http://warincontext.org/2011/10/09/the- ... unleashed/

She left office in 1990!

And here in 2012 it is her fault - never mind the thousands and thousands of new laws and regulations and changes of policy that have gone on in that time...

And as for this: -

At the heart of Thatcherite economics were the following:

A belief in freeing up markets
De-regulation to encourage enterprise and efficiency
Reducing the influence of government

She was/is exactly right!

Regulation kills enterprise - you'd know that if you read the article that I linked to earlier but I know you won't...

Listen to Nigel Farage on regulation....



You don't have to watch it all - start at 22mins...

But if you do watch it all, you'll enjoy the part on the Grexit which starts at 7mins...

[tsukoui]

At the heart of Thatcherite economics were the following:

A belief in freeing up markets
De-regulation to encourage enterprise and efficiency
Reducing the influence of government

http://www.bized.co.uk/current/mind/2003_4/170504.htm

... and:

The financial deregulation monster that Margaret Thatcher unleashed

by NEWS SOURCES on OCTOBER 9, 2011

http://warincontext.org/2011/10/09/the- ... unleashed/

She left office in 1990!

And here in 2012 it is her fault - never mind the thousands and thousands of new laws and regulations and changes of policy that have gone on in that time...

And as for this: -

At the heart of Thatcherite economics were the following:

A belief in freeing up markets
De-regulation to encourage enterprise and efficiency
Reducing the influence of government

She was/is exactly right!

Regulation kills enterprise - you'd know that if you read the article that I linked to earlier but I know you won't...

[/quote]

Of course Thatcher was right that deregulation accelerates capitalism. The rule of capital. I suppose you are against monopoly regulation as well?

No one has been able to refute Marx's analysis of the dynamics of capitalism. Thatcher is right, regulation damages capitalism, that's the whole point, it is meant to reign it in. The alternative is social crisis. The elites have cleverly used regulation to manage social crisis so that it doesn't turn into revolution.

[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....

But deregulation was central to her government!

Simply:

At the heart of Thatcherite economics were the following:

A belief in freeing up markets
De-regulation to encourage enterprise and efficiency
Reducing the influence of government

http://www.bized.co.uk/current/mind/2003_4/170504.htm

... and:

The financial deregulation monster that Margaret Thatcher unleashed

by NEWS SOURCES on OCTOBER 9, 2011

http://warincontext.org/2011/10/09/the- ... unleashed/

She left office in 1990!

And here in 2012 it is her fault - never mind the thousands and thousands of new laws and regulations and changes of policy that have gone on in that time...

And as for this: -

At the heart of Thatcherite economics were the following:

A belief in freeing up markets
De-regulation to encourage enterprise and efficiency
Reducing the influence of government

She was/is exactly right!

Regulation kills enterprise - you'd know that if you read the article that I linked to earlier but I know you won't...

Listen to Nigel Farage on regulation....



You don't have to watch it all - start at 22mins...

But if you do watch it all, you'll enjoy the part on the Grexit which starts at 7mins...

Of course Thatcher was right that deregulation accelerates capitalism. The rule of capital. I suppose you are against monopoly regulation as well?

No one has been able to refute Marx's analysis of the dynamics of capitalism. Thatcher is right, regulation damages capitalism, that's the whole point, it is meant to reign it in. The alternative is social crisis. The elites have cleverly used regulation to manage social crisis so that it doesn't turn into revolution.

Regulation and government interference merely distort the market - there are always unintended consequences...

That is why the economies of most of the world are in such a state - socialist control of markets has led to the situation where vast percentages of the population are dependent (directly or indirectly)on the state.

More interference and control is simply unsustainable...

[tsukoui]

Regulation and government interference merely distort the market - there are always unintended consequences...

That is why the economies of most of the world are in such a state - socialist control of markets has led to the situation where vast percentages of the population are dependent (directly or indirectly)on the state.

More interference and control is simply unsustainable...

Unregulated capitalism leads to social crisis whilst regulated capitalism leads to stagnation. As I said we have yet to solve this problem. The best we can do is oscillate between the two. The biggest problem is that it is still the those with capital who are controlling this oscillation. I have suggested before that the best way to extend democracy in the market is to make it mandatory that corporations be co-operatives.

[cyprusgrump]

Regulation and government interference merely distort the market - there are always unintended consequences...

That is why the economies of most of the world are in such a state - socialist control of markets has led to the situation where vast percentages of the population are dependent (directly or indirectly)on the state.

More interference and control is simply unsustainable...

Unregulated capitalism leads to social crisis whilst regulated capitalism leads to stagnation. As I said we have yet to solve this problem. The best we can do is oscillate between the two. The biggest problem is that it is still the those with capital who are controlling this oscillation. I have suggested before that the best way to extend democracy in the market is to make it mandatory that corporations be co-operatives.

Why should unregulated capitalism lead to social crisis?

And why should an entrepreneur that starts a business to create wealth and employment be forced to share it with his workers...?

[tsukoui]

Regulation and government interference merely distort the market - there are always unintended consequences...

That is why the economies of most of the world are in such a state - socialist control of markets has led to the situation where vast percentages of the population are dependent (directly or indirectly)on the state.

More interference and control is simply unsustainable...

Unregulated capitalism leads to social crisis whilst regulated capitalism leads to stagnation. As I said we have yet to solve this problem. The best we can do is oscillate between the two. The biggest problem is that it is still the those with capital who are controlling this oscillation. I have suggested before that the best way to extend democracy in the market is to make it mandatory that corporations be co-operatives.

Why should unregulated capitalism lead to social crisis?

And why should an entrepreneur that starts a business to create wealth and employment be forced to share it with his workers...?

This is basic Marx but you can even deduce it from Hayek. If the market represents a democracy where each payment counts as a vote then those with the most capital have the most votes. Thus the system tends towards those with capital alienating those without until the system breaks.

The following from Wikipedia

The economist Walter Block observed critically that while The Road to Serfdom is "a war cry against central planning," it does show some reservations with a free market system and laissez-faire capitalism,[32] with Hayek even going so far as to say that "probably nothing has done so much harm to the liberal cause as the wooden insistence of some liberals on certain rules of thumb, above all the principle of laissez-faire."[33] In the book, Hayek writes that the government has a role to play in the economy through the monetary system, work-hours regulation, institutions for the flow of proper information, and other principles on which most members of a free society will tend to agree. These are contentions associated with the point of view of ordoliberalism. However, when central planning reaches into areas on which people will probably not agree, the tendency is created for dictatorship and totalitarianism (i.e. "serfdom"), as a means of coercing implementation of one's plan.
Through analysis of this and other of Hayek's works, Block purports, "in making the case against socialism, Hayek was led into making all sort of compromises with what otherwise appeared to be his own philosophical perspective – so much so, that if a system was erected on the basis of them, it would not differ too sharply from what this author explicitly opposed."

[cyprusgrump]

Regulation and government interference merely distort the market - there are always unintended consequences...

That is why the economies of most of the world are in such a state - socialist control of markets has led to the situation where vast percentages of the population are dependent (directly or indirectly)on the state.

More interference and control is simply unsustainable...

Unregulated capitalism leads to social crisis whilst regulated capitalism leads to stagnation. As I said we have yet to solve this problem. The best we can do is oscillate between the two. The biggest problem is that it is still the those with capital who are controlling this oscillation. I have suggested before that the best way to extend democracy in the market is to make it mandatory that corporations be co-operatives.

Why should unregulated capitalism lead to social crisis?

And why should an entrepreneur that starts a business to create wealth and employment be forced to share it with his workers...?

This is basic Marx but you can even deduce it from Hayek. If the market represents a democracy where each payment counts as a vote then those with the most capital have the most votes. Thus the system tends towards those with capital alienating those without until the system breaks.

The following from Wikipedia

The economist Walter Block observed critically that while The Road to Serfdom is "a war cry against central planning," it does show some reservations with a free market system and laissez-faire capitalism,[32] with Hayek even going so far as to say that "probably nothing has done so much harm to the liberal cause as the wooden insistence of some liberals on certain rules of thumb, above all the principle of laissez-faire."[33] In the book, Hayek writes that the government has a role to play in the economy through the monetary system, work-hours regulation, institutions for the flow of proper information, and other principles on which most members of a free society will tend to agree. These are contentions associated with the point of view of ordoliberalism. However, when central planning reaches into areas on which people will probably not agree, the tendency is created for dictatorship and totalitarianism (i.e. "serfdom"), as a means of coercing implementation of one's plan.
Through analysis of this and other of Hayek's works, Block purports, "in making the case against socialism, Hayek was led into making all sort of compromises with what otherwise appeared to be his own philosophical perspective – so much so, that if a system was erected on the basis of them, it would not differ too sharply from what this author explicitly opposed."

But apart from quoting from Wiki, can you give an actual example of 'unregulated capitalism' leading to social crisis...?

[tsukoui]

Regulation and government interference merely distort the market - there are always unintended consequences...

That is why the economies of most of the world are in such a state - socialist control of markets has led to the situation where vast percentages of the population are dependent (directly or indirectly)on the state.

More interference and control is simply unsustainable...

Unregulated capitalism leads to social crisis whilst regulated capitalism leads to stagnation. As I said we have yet to solve this problem. The best we can do is oscillate between the two. The biggest problem is that it is still the those with capital who are controlling this oscillation. I have suggested before that the best way to extend democracy in the market is to make it mandatory that corporations be co-operatives.

Why should unregulated capitalism lead to social crisis?

And why should an entrepreneur that starts a business to create wealth and employment be forced to share it with his workers...?

This is basic Marx but you can even deduce it from Hayek. If the market represents a democracy where each payment counts as a vote then those with the most capital have the most votes. Thus the system tends towards those with capital alienating those without until the system breaks.

The following from Wikipedia

The economist Walter Block observed critically that while The Road to Serfdom is "a war cry against central planning," it does show some reservations with a free market system and laissez-faire capitalism,[32] with Hayek even going so far as to say that "probably nothing has done so much harm to the liberal cause as the wooden insistence of some liberals on certain rules of thumb, above all the principle of laissez-faire."[33] In the book, Hayek writes that the government has a role to play in the economy through the monetary system, work-hours regulation, institutions for the flow of proper information, and other principles on which most members of a free society will tend to agree. These are contentions associated with the point of view of ordoliberalism. However, when central planning reaches into areas on which people will probably not agree, the tendency is created for dictatorship and totalitarianism (i.e. "serfdom"), as a means of coercing implementation of one's plan.
Through analysis of this and other of Hayek's works, Block purports, "in making the case against socialism, Hayek was led into making all sort of compromises with what otherwise appeared to be his own philosophical perspective – so much so, that if a system was erected on the basis of them, it would not differ too sharply from what this author explicitly opposed."

But apart from quoting from Wiki, can you give an actual example of 'unregulated capitalism' leading to social crisis...?

You will argue that there has never been "unregulated capitalism" and in a sense you are right. As I have said the elites, i.e. those with capital, have always cleverly managed the situation through regulation to avoid social crisis ending up as revolution. But there are many examples where relaxing regulation has led to social crisis. For many in the U.S., for example, social crisis is a daily reality.

[cyprusgrump]

You will argue that there has never been "unregulated capitalism" and in a sense you are right. As I have said the elites, i.e. those with capital, have always cleverly managed the situation through regulation to avoid social crisis ending up as revolution. But there are many examples where relaxing regulation has led to social crisis. For many in the U.S., for example, social crisis is a daily reality.

So, to paraphrase your answer is "No, I cannot give any actual example of 'unregulated capitalism' leading to social crisis"?