Subject: »NEWS AROUND THE WORLD

That's the exact reason anarchocapitalists give to explain why competition is better, also for the justice system.

And your answer to that is usually... what?

I think everyone agrees that the current system is sick. And it must change. By getting the government out of the financial system.

I think the opposite,
I think that banks, as police or military can't be a private business but it must be owned by public, no private people must be allowed to make money lendig them directly.
If the bank sector is kept private democracy is sick, blackmailed and manipulated.

if people care about them (which they should), they should voluntarily pay to an organization that helps poor people in court. So a private organization that is voluntarily funded can do what the government does now.

but this doesn't happen in reality.
So we must understand that people doesn't care? And simply accept it? And if I'm poor? should I simply accept it ?
"Well but if they would help me this will be a lot more efficent(*), wow, now I feel a lot better!"

(*)= false statement.

This is like saying we don't need the penal laws about murder, because people can respect life by a free choice.. if they doesn't that's a free choice to be respected!

In reality the point is that there are no natural rights (as property or freedom) on people. So there are no freedom to discuss about..
there is not a natural right of property upon people and then arrives the state to tax it, property comes from the state rules.
Rights are only positively given or imposed. but given or imposed by who?
imposed by who has the strength to do so. If there's a state, it is the state, if there isn't, from the strongest man or organization tha are able to do so.

So in a democracy rules are made up by the majority mechanisms to realize what people want (or like), that can be almost everything.
When the poor people get the power to make some rules, they'll do rules to protect them and to redistribute money and wealth. when the power goes to the richer, they'll do rules to protect their goods from taxation and redistribuition.
that's all. Only balance of power between different people interests!!! No need for any useless (or ideologic) speech about rights, thefts, freedoms, efficencies or justice at all.

I think that banks, as police or military can't be a private business but it must be owned by public,


this is typical socialist bullshit :-). So if some people have enough money they can not set up their own bank ? And did you ever hear about freedom and right to make own business?

After this happen, you will tell us in the next year this sentence:
"I think that automobile industry is so huge that it cant be a private business but it must be owned by public"


The real good solution is very simple, just make good laws and make good control of it.

I think that greeks, italians and others shouldnt have right to manage their own country, their countries should be managed by EU public :-D

This my statement is totally same bullshit as you told, but it has same principle :-).

this is typical socialist bullshit :-).

socialist?
why socialist?

So if some people have enough money they can not set up their own bank ? And did you ever hear about freedom and right to make own business?

there are business that destroy democracy (police, justice, military and IMHO banks) you can't do that type of business if laws forbid it.
The question is if there's a good motivation for..

After this happen, you will tell us in the next year this sentence:
"I think that automobile industry is so huge that it cant be a private business but it must be owned by public"

Apart the thing I think that if there's something good to be done I've no ideology that will impede me to do so..
to be HUGE is not necessarily to be dangerous for democracies.

The real good solution is very simple, just make good laws and make good control of it.

My opinion is that is impossible, because of the fact that the economical concentration of power, ends always in controlling politicians, and never the opposite.

I think that greeks, italians and others shouldnt have right to manage their own country, their countries should be managed by EU public :-D

This my statement is totally same bullshit as you told, but it has same principle :-).

Well.
That's how it works now..
Are you happy with results?

NB: after Cyprus, next euro victim will be Slovenia (not slovakia), take note.
(edited)

Well.
That's how it works now..
Are you happy with results?

Just because you are able to say that current system doesn't work well, you're still a long way from having a solution. So, please, stop making your argumentation in that way: "This doesn't work, therefore I am right." It's not that simple.

I agree with rumpil:

The real good solution is very simple, just make good laws and make good control of it.

So, if the state is not able to do that, how is it going to run bank business which is even more complicated than regulation? No way.

Regulation should be a fairly simple task: don't allow what you don't understand well enough and be consistent in enacting the rules. The regulators weren't able to do well either of these simple 2 rules. How are the politicians going to run banks when they will appoint as bank managers people whose only qualification is that they are their comrades from their parties?

Just because you are able to say that current system doesn't work well, you're still a long way from having a solution. So, please, stop making your argumentation in that way: "This doesn't work, therefore I am right." It's not that simple.

I was only kidding about italian people that doesn't govern theirself!


I agree with rumpil:

The real good solution is very simple, just make good laws and make good control of it.

I agree too, and I said that the good rule to be done is to deny private to make business that put in danger democracy.

So, if the state is not able to do that, how is it going to run bank business which is even more complicated than regulation? No way.

1 those are very different things. Running a bank its not so hard, especially if your goal became to use money for public interests. Anyway I think there a re no other choices.
At ancient Rome times military were private, then they understand that this lead always to golpes, and changed..
2 is false that state is not able, state doesn't want, because its politicians are often controlled or blackmailed by banks.

NB: bank and financial system is a vital function for modern economies, we must not criminalize them a-critically.
But we must also understand how those concentration of money becamed a politic power and how it intervene in politics. I don't think that state can rule and control a power strong at least as state itself. This power is too much to be left in privates hands. IMHO.

I agree too, and I said that the good rule to be done is to deny private to make business that put in danger democracy.

Yes, but not in a way to deny it completely. Only bad practices in business need to be denied because there are many good examples and we just need to learn from them. You will not find many good examples of state running a bank. The problem is that we will always need some sort of positive selection in banking business and this gets ideally accomplished by combination of market principles and strict and smart regulation.

1 those are very different things. Running a bank its not so hard, especially if your goal became to use money for public interests. Anyway I think there a re no other choices.

It is hard to run a bank for the state because you need to make a profit to have a sustainable bank business and the state is not motivated to make a profit. The state is motivated to make order and security so it should do just that.

At ancient Rome times military were private, then they understand that this lead always to golpes, and changed..

Yes. Because the motive of the police should be order and security and not profit. That's why the state is an ideal choice to make that business. This is already state's primary purpose and motivation.

2 is false that state is not able, state doesn't want, because its politicians are often controlled or blackmailed by banks.

Most conspiracy theories are simply rationalizations of people being incompetent or just plain stupid. We don't see ourselves as incompetent and stupid and so we also don't imagine that other people are also incompetent and stupid as often as we should. It's much easier to believe that they have some sort of evil agenda.

There is always corruption but if you think that corruption is so strong within a society that it can dominate a whole industry, then no good practice can help such a society. There is not enough people to enact the good practices then. Then such society deserves to collapse and it most certainly will.

Economy is all about trust. If there's no one to trust, there will be no economy.

But we must also understand how those concentration of money becamed a politic power and how it intervene in politics. I don't think that state can rule and control a power strong at least as state itself. This power is too much to be left in privates hands.

Banks don't have much power. That's a psychological and economical illusion. Banks are just one of the places where the money is. Most of it is not even owned by the banks. People think that they have power because they imagine vast amounts of money there. Having a lot of money means having a lot of worries. No worries is only when you have just the right amount of money that you need.
(edited)

It is hard to run a bank for the state because you need to make a profit to have a sustainable bank

well, I disagree.


Most conspiracy theories are simply rationalizations of people being incompetent or just plain stupid.

what conspiracy theory are you talking about? there are no such things in my ideas..
there are the normal strenght of a power (the economical power in this case) that takes its role in public decision process.
This is not corruption cases, its how a democracy works..

Economy is all about trust. If there's no one to trust, there will be no economy.

this is partially false. It is not ALL about. If I produce good apples, you'll buy them from me, and you don't care who really I'm and if I'm trustable or not..

Banks don't have much power.

well, I think this is unbeliavable to read,
moreover after 4 years of impressive worldwide financial crisis, transferred to people's real economy and payed by states..
but still producing money for banks investors..

Banks are just one of the places where the money is. Most of it is not even owned by the banks. People think that they have power because they imagine vast amounts of money there.

this is quite funny.
Even the president of USA doesn't have a power that it is on his persons, but he has a power that he gets REPRESENTING people, but I find really hard to say that he can't use it..

the same way banks use money, it is not really importat who owns that money, when someone move them, he can influence governs and people..
(edited)

well, I disagree.

Disagreeing without arguments is quite easy. Banks need to invest to profitable projects. Otherwise they don't earn the interest for the depositors and they don't make the profit for themselves. That's how it works. State should watch that it really does. State wouldn't fire people from the bank when it loses income and that way endangers money of depositors and then nobody trusts the bank.

what conspiracy theory are you talking about? there are no such things in my ideas..

This conspiracy theory: because its politicians are often controlled or blackmailed by banks.

And this conspiracy theory: This is not corruption cases, its how a democracy works..

You're not even aware that you have them and that's a serious problem in a discussion with you. I will soon give up on it again.

this is partially false. It is not ALL about. If I produce good apples, you'll buy them from me, and you don't care who really I'm and if I'm trustable or not..

Well, you're terribly wrong again. If this was true, then nobody would ever invest in marketing and nobody would ever borrow money. Credit even literally means - TRUST. It's all about trust. I have to believe that your apples are not treated with pesticides that are slow killers.

well, I think this is unbeliavable to read,
moreover after 4 years of impressive worldwide financial crisis, transferred to people's real economy and payed by states..
but still producing money for banks investors..

Banks are very important part of the economy but they don't have much power in the sense that you imagine. When they run into problems, then you see their importance. Why would anyone cause a worldwide financial crisis on purpose? You watch too many Hollywood movies. This crisis is caused by general incompetence and carelessness of people in western democracies. Financial system is just a cardiovascular system of the economy and the place where you spot the symptoms of economic illness first.

the same way banks use money, it is not really importat who owns that money, when someone move them, he can influence governs and people..

If I would want to rule the whole world, I wouldn't choose to control the financial system but the media. Media today have all the power. Even Facebook is more powerful today than the banks. Apple is also more powerful. People trust Apple more than the banks.

That's also part of the reason why you think that banks are some kind of a problem. It's a media spin. It's certainly not a problem that we have omnipresent infotainment in the media instead to use the media for education and real information. How's a democracy going to work if nobody even really listens to what candidates have to say? The media rather shows scandals and tabloid type of news. Even political and economical news are presented in that way. There are more reasons that the state owns the media than there is for the financial system. Becaue the media should be motivated by the order and security rather than the profit.
(edited)

well, I disagree.

Disagreeing without arguments is quite easy. Banks need to invest to profitable projects. Otherwise they don't earn the interest for the depositors and they don't make the profit for themselves. That's how it works. State should watch that it really does. State wouldn't fire people from the bank when it loses income and that way endangers money of depositors and then nobody trusts the bank.

I disagree that it is HARD, not that it is necessary!

This conspiracy theory: because its politicians are often controlled or blackmailed by banks.

And this conspiracy theory: This is not corruption cases, its how a democracy works..

You're not even aware that you have them and that's a serious problem in a discussion with you. I will soon give up on it again.

You really don't undestand:
there's no conspiration or corruption needed to use money to influence politicians.


Well, you're terribly wrong again. If this was true, then nobody would ever invest in marketing and nobody would ever borrow money

This answer has nothing to do with my statement.
Trust is not ALL. Real economy works in many mechanism. Come on it's useless to demonstrate that you don't know and don't trust every commerciant you buy somenthing from..

Why would anyone cause a worldwide financial crisis on purpose?

this is fantastic..
what the hell has this speech to do with my words?

If I would want to rule the whole world, I wouldn't choose to control the financial system but the media. Media today have all the power. Even Facebook is more powerful today than the banks. Apple is also more powerful. People trust Apple more than the banks.

Ok, I really have read enough.
This is simply the most stupid thing I have ever readed in this discussion.
At least ask yourself who can control media, and how this control works.


That's also part of the reason why you think that banks are some kind of a problem.

I think you didn't understand A WORD of my posts..



1. banks are necessary to a modern economic system.
2. banks can do a lot of damages to democracies and to people if they are left free and private.

It is all quite simple, you can disagree, but just don't talk about conspirancy, banks that need profict, trust in business, the little power of banks..

Yes, this is what I expected. Your whole world would be shaken if you could understand what I said.

there's no conspiration or corruption needed to use money to influence politicians.

Here's the whole point of your nonsenses. You insult all the people in the world with just one sentence. "Everyone can be bought." you say. Well, I can't and I know a lot of people that can't be bought. So, speak for yourself and think about changing the company of people you socialize with.
(edited)

"Everyone can be bought." you say.

you really don't understand..
no need for corruption or buying people..
having economic strength is having the chance to create a situation that FORCE politicians (or people) to do what you prefer.

anyway,
my opinion is that financial sector must be controlled by public. Not simply ruled by laws. Controlled.
No private person must be allowed to make money from money directly.

my opinion is that financial sector must be controlled by public.

Because state companies are in general a success. Oh wait.