have state-owned banks ever been nationalised in a democracy before?
(excuse my history ignorance)
how can there be true democracy when some power-players amount to having even more effect on our lives than our elected leaders?
it's an area of too much responsibility to accord to mere citizens, when they can bugger off with huge amounts of cash from their machinations, bellowing all the time how regulation and/or nationalisation is against their ideology, well screw that...
when public trust is abused to this degree, with so little accountability, i don't care a fig for your precious ideology, your behaviour is that of a thief, and you've demonstrated that said ideology is devoid of any public good whatsoever, as it was used to justify fleecing others with.
if we're ever going to have sweeping reforms, now's a good time for them, but if i knew that the italian state had rule over all the money flow in the country, i confess it would freaque me out.
i am concerned at the voices predicting the end of the euro, but so far i find trichet more credible and trustworthy than the likes of paulson.
my gut feeling is that this has to be worldwide, and who's going to design such an overhaul of international banking?
i suspect it'll be a last resort after trying and failing everything else, and if we're there, why not give chris cook's LLP thing more of a chance too?
seems about as radical a rethink as any in the history of 'property rights', aka 'who gets what and how long they keep it'...
~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
Since when does all power come from the ballot? A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith
in theory, anyway, lol. ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
Jefferson envisioned a republic of small land holders, and Jackson was the proponent of the "backwoods" everyman who he mobilized in the service of westward expansion, relocation of Native Americans in the service of real estate developers and the expansion of slave holding practices. Lincoln was a great proponent of "government of the people, by the people and for the people," but freeing the slaves was a strategic act of war rather than of principle. The Radical Republicans tried to extend the franchise to emancipated blacks during reconstruction but worship of money prevailed under Grant and Jim Crow emerged in the South. Women had to wait until the 20th century except in the west. Native Americans, whether their first European language was English, French or Spanish, had to wait until the second half of the 20th century. Democracy for whom? As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
my gut feeling is that this has to be worldwide, and who's going to design such an overhaul of international banking? i suspect it'll be a last resort after trying and failing everything else, and if we're there, why not give chris cook's LLP thing more of a chance too? seems about as radical a rethink as any in the history of 'property rights', aka 'who gets what and how long they keep it'..
seems about as radical a rethink as any in the history of 'property rights', aka 'who gets what and how long they keep it'..
The overhaul will not come from the debtors, so the necessary Bretton Woods II must originate from the creditors.
If nationalisation is the solution, then, frankly, we are not asking the right question.
As a transitional measure, there is no reason whatever why Banks should not engage with the State within a partnership framework - no legislation is needed for such a consensual solution.
The State puts in the necessary Capital, and shares in agreed proportions in the gross revenues (before management costs etc) with those using the Capital - ie the people who are the management costs.
Canadian and Australian "Income Trusts" operated in exactly such a "pre-distributive" way on Corporate revenues, but the tax-man eventually put a stop to them.
Such a partnership model transcends the "Principal/ Agency" problem which is that the management's interests always diverge from the owners' interests, whether ownership is "Public"= "owned by the State" or "Private" = "owned by a Corporation".
It essentially creates a new form of continuous
Open Capital
of indefinite duration - ie for as long as you use it, you share the revenues or production it enables - which transcends the discontinuity between the absolutes of conventional:
(a) Equity - "Permanent" Capital of infinite duration; and
(b) Debt - temporary capital of finite duration.
As you will see if you look at the site, I use the Mobius strip as a metaphor for the continuity of such "Open" Capital - as compared to the "two sided" and therefore discontinuous conventional "Closed" forms of financial capital and property.
All good stuff: I don't do "abstract", of course.... ;-)
Back to the Real World.
I'm off to Teheran for ten days on Friday, to make a presentation at a major conference re "PetroTrusts" ie the "Unitisation" and thence monetisation of energy generally, starting with carbon-based energy.
I'll also be seeing ministers, parliamentarians, virtually the entire financial services industry (I'm told) and even the clerics in the holy city of Qom to discuss the Islamic aspects of financing systems.
I will be posting my paper and presentation on my web-site from Sunday 12th October for anyone interested. In the meantime I am posting as a Diary the "outline" article which is appearing shortly in the Iranian press - don't worry, it's not the Farsi version...! "Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky
I'm off to Teheran for ten days on Friday, to make a presentation at a major conference re "PetroTrusts" ie the "Unitisation" and thence monetisation of energy generally, starting with carbon-based energy. I'll also be seeing ministers, parliamentarians, virtually the entire financial services industry (I'm told) and even the clerics in the holy city of Qom to discuss the Islamic aspects of financing systems.
May you meet with receptive minds. Fare thee well. As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
The 2 might interest you (as feedback for better communication). The paged you linked to was to me easier to understand because my flow of reading was not there stumped by quotes around individual words, which apparently makes me stop and figure that you are using the terms in different ways then the normal convention. So when you write:
I figure that you mark "Open", "two sided" and "Closed" as having a different meaning then Open, two sided and Closed. So for me it is much easier if you write:
As you will see if you look at the site, I use the Mobius strip as a metaphor for the continuity of such Open Capital - as compared to the two sided and therefore discontinuous conventional closed forms of financial capital and property.
Before then I assume that all words are used in their conventional way and go for the meaning of the sentence rather then individual words.
I do not want to presume that this is a general experience, but as you are communicating to an audience, some might share this experience. Take it as feedback, and use it (or not).
And good luck in Teheran! A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
I will attempt to ration my use of quotes in the future.....! "Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky
But I agree, too much is too much - a stylistic blunder. You can't be me, I'm taken
And in terms of international transactions, the total that have the EU and North America on one or the other side must be substantially more than half.
Seems like if the US, Eurozone, City of ... uh, UK, and Japan got together, on a common envelope, that would be a strong kernel for a regulatory framework. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
If North America and the broader EU ...... (as opposed to the Eurozone) is taken together, isn't that around half of world GDP on current exchange rates?
Appears to be: World GDP (official exchange rate): GWP (gross world product): $54.62 trillion (2007 est.)
EU GDP (official exchange rate): $16.62 trillion (2007 est.)
US GDP (official exchange rate): $13.84 trillion (2007 est.)
All from CIA - The World Factbook. A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
Daily Kos: Nationalisation is the solution
It was full nationalisation
I would say it was partial nationalisation and strong re-regulation. It was a lot of different actions taken. The best description I have found is from swedish wikipedia. The article is not very good (it appears to lean heavily on one source and lacks proper sourcing) but I will translate the key part anyway as it illustrates the mix of actions taken. Unfortunately I lack the sources to improve it.
The local councils, police depts etc in the UK and I would think elsewhere have huge deposits in failed or failing banks. While Iceland and the UK are in the courts; UK government will have to give loans to these institutions in order to function. Unfortunately whatever loans are given won't be enough to sustain the present services so they will have to be cut.
Easiest answer is total socialism for citizens' basic needs and services for the time being until this mess is sorted out and a new system in place relying on the many ideas put forth on ET. The idea Free Enterprise will provide social justice has been debunked and unfortunately the governments will only find this out after all solutions to maintain the present system is proved to be not working. Priorities of any new system have to be social justice first, then free enterprise providing individuals incentives to better society not profits for their own well being.
Otherwise, civil unrest and fascism will be their way.
