"Recapitalise the banks!"
That's the rallying cry from the pundits to a Eurozone on the ropes.
But what do they mean by "recapitalise the banks"? I think they mean steal from the poor (the taxpayers) and give to the rich (the bankers).
Do you smell the whiff of revolution?
I do...
But what do they mean by "recapitalise the banks"? I think they mean steal from the poor (the taxpayers) and give to the rich (the bankers).
Do you smell the whiff of revolution?
I do...
posted by The Editor at
10:46 PM
11 Comments:
Capitalist Network
As though things weren't already depressing.
Recapitalise the banks means, for example, allow Greece to default on billions of dollars of debt, and the Eurozone will give you (the bank) half the loss back in taxpayer funds. Since this is better than allowing Greece to default and getting nothing back, the banks agree. The reason the Eurozone is doing this is that allowing the bank(s) to fail will crash the entire economy, resulting in mass unemployment, vanished savings and all your super gone in a puff of smoke.
Extreme poverty on the one hand, capitalism on the other? The rent-a-crowd occupying Melbourne Square have never thought anything through in their lives.
This comment has been removed by the author.
@AndrewM: "Taxpayer funded bailout" is just another name for "taking from the poor to give to the rich."
I'm not letting you get away with your suggestion that there are only two simple options i.e. "Extreme poverty on the one hand, capitalism on the other."
How about taxpayer bailouts with serious conditions attached? (Like long jail terms for those who caused the crap, and serious renumerative restrictions on management and CEO's until the bail-out is repaid in full.)
Those who took part in the mismanagement MUST be held to account AND made to repay any bonuses they "earned" under false pretenses. It's time management realised there were serious risks to their personal wellbeing if they want to play 'capitalist cowboy'.
When I become dictator of Australia, I'll cut through the crap! :-) Like: A bank's depositors get first bite at the liquidation cherry if the ship is sinking.
@Gerry: let's cut to the quick, because I think we're talking at cross-purposes. From the tenor of your last post it seems that you're blaming the banks that did the lending rather than the national governments that did the spending. I don't think that's reasonable - both are at fault. And, in my view, the governments are more at fault than the banks.
With respect to your other point: theoretically the easiest way to achieve what you want is to ban limited liability companies and make all company directors personally responsible for the financial performance of their firms. Good luck finding anybody prepared to be a company director under that regime.
@AnddrewM: I'll deal with your comment soon, but in the meantime
you may find this interesting.
@Gerry: I'll wait until the movie is released on 8 November before making a definitive judgement, but that teaser you linked smells a heck of a lot like Tea Party propaganda to me.
@AndrewM: I don't think so. She's part of a project that did The Story of Stuff
@AndrewM: A situation has developed where the Eurozone tax payers have to bail out the Banks (Big Business). Blind Freddy could see it would come to this. The dynamics were well known and understood, especially by the governments and the banks.
Until a different regulatory regime is put in place, one which makes it clear that no public bailouts will ever be condoned, the banks will lend to dodgy borrowers and governments will borrow instead of living within their means.
It only happens because of the unstated but assumed caveat that the taxpayer will be milked if it all looks like going pear shaped. THAT caveat must be demolished.
The entire "too big to fail" thing must be undone. i.e. any corporation growing too big must be wound back to a manageable, non-threatening size. If the corporation does not do this voluntarily, then the government should step in and do it for them.
This will all be implemented when I take over the world. ;-)
@Gerry: re the Story of Stuff: you're right, that's a long way from Tea Party propaganda. Did Annie Leonard even pause to take a breath during that 20-minute rant?
And in reference to your last comment: I pretty much agree with all you said, but I still think you're only looking at hlaf the story i.e. blaming the banks that did the lending but not blaming the governments that did the borrowing. Both are culpable.
My dear Andrew, you can call it a rant, I call it getting the message across. You may critique it, others may just "get" it. Different strokes for different folks. :-)
I'm not blaming the banks alone. I'm talking about not milking the taxpayer to fund a corrupt system.
I'm talking about putting a system in place which makes both the banks and the governments act responsibly and live within their means.
I'm talking about responsibility and solutions to the problem, not merely blame.
And yes, I think in order for responsibility to enter the equation, and the correct solutions to be implemented, a revolution must occur.
When I become dictator... ;-)
@AndrewM: Alan Kohler, editor in chief of Business Spectator and the finance presenter on ABC News, in an opinion piece on The Drum (November 2), had this to say:
"The debt crisis in Europe is the fault of bankers, yet the people are the ones who pay."
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
==========
<<<<< Home
==========