What is wrong with capitalism?

[estesbob]

You have consistently argued that the cause being the US lack of regulation and greed as wrong – if you don’t like that being paraphrased as you stating they are blameless please make yourself clear on your point of view and/or provide a word you are more comfortable with.

…
.

Federal Register Hits 75,000 Pages

Thats 75,000 pages of REGULTAIONS and its just for the Federal Govt

 

[John21652]

Federal Register Hits 75,000 Pages

Thats 75,000 pages of REGULATIONS and its just for the Federal Govt

That is a mind blowing statistic.

It creates a minefield of regulation that is dangerous for both the regulated and the regulators.

In fact, it gives great credence to what Professor Horwitz was talking about when he penned his An Open Letter To My Friends of the Left.

It is a natural reaction for those whose politico-economic ideology is of the left that they seek to smother human endeavours with even more and more regulation. They have a naturally pessimistic view of human nature and so, according to them, it must be constrained and controlled. As Horwotz points out very pursuasively, the unscrupulous soon work out how to make the regualtions work in their favour.

 

[essie7777]

Federal Register Hits 75,000 Pages

Thats 75,000 pages of REGULTAIONS and its just for the Federal Govt

I’m not sure the fact that there’s a lot of pages on the Federal Register actually does anything but point out a real over use of paper – if the regulations themselves are lacking in power, oversight and ability to do there job – that’s a lack of regulation.

 

[John21652]

I’m not sure the fact that there’s a lot of pages on the Federal Register actually does anything but point out a real over use of paper – if the regulations themselves are lacking in power, oversight and ability to do there job – that’s a lack of regulation.

For your edification and enlightenment -

To call the housing and credit crisis a failure of the free market or the product of unregulated greed is to overlook the myriad government regulations, policies, and political pronouncements that have both reduced the “freedom” of this market and channeled self-interest in ways that have produced disastrous consequences, both intended and unintended. Let me briefly recap goverment’s starring role in our little drama.
For starters, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are “government sponsored enterprises”. Though technically privately owned, they have particular privileges granted by the government, they are overseen by Congress, and, most importantly, they have operated with a clear promise that if they failed, they would be bailed out. Hardly a “free market.” All the players in the mortgage market knew this from early on. In the early 1990s, Congress eased Fannie and Freddie’s lending requirements (to 1/4th the capital required by regular commercial banks) so as to increase their ability to lend to poor areas. Congress also created a regulatory agency to oversee them, but this agency also had to reapply to Congress for its budget each year (no other financial regulator must do so), assuring that it would tell Congress exactly what it wanted to hear: “things are fine.” In 1995, Fannie and Freddie were given permission to enter the subprime market and** regulators began to crack down on banks who were not lending enough to distressed areas.** Several attempts were made to rein in Fannie and Freddie, but Congress didn’t have the votes to do so, especially with both organizations making significant campaign contributions to members of both parties. Even the New York Times as far back as 1999 saw exactly what might happen thanks to this very unfree market, warning of a need to bailout Fannie and Freddie if the housing market dropped.
Complicating matters further was the 1994 renewal/revision of the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977. The CRA requires banks to to make a certain percentage of their loans within their local communities, especially when those communities are economically disadvantaged. In addition, Congress explicitly directed Fannie and Freddie to expand their lending to borrowers with marginal credit as a way of expanding homeownership. What all of these did together was to create an enormous profit and political incentives for banks and Fannie and Freddie to lend more to riskier low-income borrowers. However well-intentioned the attempts were to extend homeownership to more Americans, forcing banks to do so and artificially lowering the costs of doing so are a huge part of the problem we now find ourselves in.
At the same time, home prices were rising making those who had taken on large mortgages with small down payments feel as though they could handle them and inspiring a whole variety of new mortagage instruments. What’s interesting is that the rise in prices affected most strongly cities with stricter land-use regulations, which also explains the fact that not every city was affected to the same degree by the rising home values. These regulations prevented certain kinds of land from being used for homes, pushing the rising demand for housing (fueled by the considerations above) into a slowly responding supply of land. The result was rapidly rising prices. In those areas with less stringent land-use regulations, the housing price boom’s effect was much smaller. Again, it was regulation, not free markets, that drove the search for profits and was a key contributor to the rising home prices that fueled the lending spree.

Cont.d

 

[John21652]

Cont.d
While all of this was happpening, the Federal Reserve, nominally private but granted enormous monopoly privileges by government, was pumping in the credit and driving interest rates lower and lower. This influx of credit further fueled the borrowing binge. With plenty of funds available, thanks to your friendly monopoly central bank (hardly the free market at work), banks could afford to continue to lend riskier and riskier.
The final chapter of the story is that in 2004 and 2005, following the accounting scandals at Freddie, both Freddie and Fannie paid penance to Congress by agreeing to expand their lending to low-income customers. Both agreed to acquire greater amounts of subprime and Alt-A loans, sending the green light to banks to originate them. From 2004 2003 [corrected on 10/19/08] to 2006, the percentage of loans in those riskier categories grew from 8% to 20% of all US mortgage originations. And the quality of these loans were dropping too: downpayments were getting progressively smaller and more and more loans carried low starter interest rates that would adjust upward later on. The banks were taking on riskier borrowers, but knew they had a guaranteed buyer for those loans in Fannie and Freddie, back, of course, by us taxpayers. Yes, banks were “greedy” for new customers and riskier loans, but they were responding to incentives created by well-intentioned but misguided government interventions. It is these interventions that are ultimately responsible for the risky loans gone bad that are at the center of the current crisis, not the “free market.”
The current mess is thus clearly shot through and through with government meddling with free markets, from the Fed-provided fuel to the CRA and land-use regulations to Fannie and Freddie creating an artificial market for risky mortgages in order to meet Congress’s demands for more home-ownership opportunities for low-income families.Professor Steve Horwitz, Charles A. Dana Professor and Chair, Department of Economics, St. Lawrence University

And to think it was predicted by the New York Times as far back as 1999!!

And note, how the regulators “cracked down on banks”.

 

[essie7777]

Thirty years of welfareism is not “new”. Greece was already well into deficit spending by the time it came to join the E.U.

Of course 30 years of welfare state is new when yu look at the age of the country and its political structures.

Are you not lumping government overspending into welfare spending as it is convenient?

No one disputes there were debts held by Greece but where that money was being spent was not on the welfare system which was the point you made and i was addressing.

Oh yeah, before I forget, research Greece’s spending on the Olympics and pale at the rorting and cost overuns. Sheeesh.

Erm point above. Not sure how the Olympics overspending can be tracked to the cost of welfare. As that was the point i was responding to. Here you seem to agree with me that it is more than that???

He is on record as saying that the bankruptcy in Greece is attributable to two giant political parties that competitively engaged in welfare populism.

That statement is not in itself incorrect, however the amounts spent on the welfare state are dwarfed by other government spending which pushed them into debt.

Yes. Greece borrowed from the likes of Goldman Sachs to hide their debt and to fiddle the books to gain entry into the enlarged E.U.

So you are acknowledging that Greece was exposed to the toxic assets which abounded after the meltdown in 2007-2008? So they then did suffer as a consequence?

The independent analysis of the Greek application (2005 OECD Report) into the EU had their fiddled figures concluded the variance was between 0.7 to 1 percentage point of GDP, depending on the accountancy rules used which changed in 2000, 1 year after the Greek application was applied for. Considered at the time not to be enough to disqualify as natural statistical variance is accepted up to 1 % point. The media hype has led to the well accepted but not strictly true perception that they fiddled the books.

Interest rates fell and Greece’s profligacy went unchecked. Unfunded pensions, rediculously early retirement schemes and generous pensions to ex-public servants were all symtomatic of greece’s profligate spending and corruption.

Interest rates fell because of the financial crisis being felt globally, if Greece’s profligacy went unchecked that doesn’t conclude that is was spending solely on welfare …

Your comments about the pension system are part true and part not. The pension system is generous, but not just to civil servants. However before you focus simply on that sentence consider this the reason it is so generous is that Greece still operates a final salary pension scheme. They stick to it as they believe it shields the population suffering from market fluctuations, which it does. However when the investments behind it are too exposed to toxic assets the cost is expensive to recoup.

It actually started earlier. In the 1990s. This is when when Iceland freed up its economy. I mentioned the Icelandic fishing industry, but you bypassed this point

.

Because the fishing industry had no relation to the banking collapse! The banks collapsed because of their international exposure that is why the government refused to bail them out as they did not guarantee debts abroad. Hence Iceland simply allowed the banks to go bankrupt.

Most of that credit came from the U.K. not the U.S.

Iceland built its expansion on the world wide credit boom and invested heavily in European businesses. It did not expose itself directly to the sub-prime market.

Iceland was actually renowned for its investment in the banking sector specifically so those investments in European businesses were caught in the meltdown.

That’s the whole point i’m trying to make to you because of how the situation grew; investors didn’t need to exposed directly in the assets, they simply may be caught in the secondary market of those interbank markets.

–I actually wrote 10%

My error you did say 10 times – not 10% though or there would have been no crisis.

Oh come on. The global financial collapse caught Iceland as exposed as Greece and Ireland. Iceland did not institute a welfare state

.

So there was a global financial collapse?

And you are pointing out here one of your own examples of a country caught didn’t have a welfare system … that simply invalidates your argument on this issue for them.

I mentioned my own. I could throw in China, Thailand, High government spending as a percentage of GDP, usually with deficit budgets, caused the greatest exposure.

I must have missed where you’re from.

The markets you mention are insular and have little international exposure at both a Sovereign debt level or at a high enough level to international banking debt for it to be significant.

The only issue with government debt, is whether they can pay on it. If they have invested in the wrong places they default, so it all circles back to the investments they hold. There isn’t a government anywhere that doesn’t have significant debt at any given time.

Your use of Sweden is a red herring, your belief that the welfare state is winding back is false. The debate on Swedish welfare state has been raging for over 20 years.

It must be so frustrating for those who advocate for free economies, as Sweden isn’t one.Their GDP (2010) per capita: $48,832. and an annual GDP growth rate (2010): 5.5%.

With all of the welfare state services, generous pensions, education, childcare, they seem to be doing great.

For comparison the annual World growth rate by GDP is 4.44% and the US lags behind at 2.85% for the same year 2010.

Constantly attacking and veiling your insults with sarcasm doesn’t make them dissappear

 

[carn]

Before trying to answer the thread question, please take a look at the following “code of conduct” for a government:

Protect the rights of everybody and respect the rule of law with basic human rights forming the foundation of the law. This includes property rights and therefore any interference into property rights is like the interference into any other human right (e.g. life,liberty) is only possible according to laws and such laws are only valid and may be passed if there is sufficient reason for the interference, which can only arise from the protection of human rights (e.g. poor people should not starve, so non-poor may be forced to provide the food/means for food if a voluntary solution does not work, voluntary solution preferable because then no interference into rights necessary).

However i look at this, i cannot see any evil in this, except that maybe having a government at all is risky because governments are powerful and power can corrupt.

The problem is, if a government would act accordingly, its country would be what a lot of people would name wild-west capitalism because people would mostly be free to use their property as they want to. And such a country would probably be far more capitalistic than nearly any country today and the ones today are deemed to be far too capitalistic by many.

So how does the wrongness get into capitalism, if even a moral government would have capitalism all over the place, and what exactly is wrong about capitalism?

Greed is of course a problem, but greed is a problem for any system just like other vices.

I lost track of this thread on page 8. Did anyone in the remaining 17 pages get any closer to explain what is wrong with capitalism not from the results but from the principles?

It seems all criticism of capitalism is founded on some perceived result of capitalism.

 

[Abu]

Thanks, John21652, for the facts on the U.S. finagling by the government and the Fed. It’s good for readers to face reality. (Posts # 361-2).

 

[Abu]

essie7777 #363
Your use of Sweden is a red herring, your belief that the welfare state is winding back is false. The debate on Swedish welfare state has been raging for over 20 years.

The same misrepresentation ad nauseam.

JANUARY 26, 2011.
The Swedish Model
It’s the free-market reforms, stupid
By JOHNNY MUNKHAMMAR
tinyurl.com/7hyzsc5

Extracts
Sweden’s socialism lasted only for a couple of decades, roughly during the 1970s and 1980s. And as it happens, these decades mark the only break in the modern Swedish success story.

Meanwhile, unemployment benefits, sick leave and early retirement plans have all been streamlined to encourage work. The number of people receiving such welfare—which soared during the socialist decades—has fallen by 150,000 since 2006, a main reason for Sweden’s remarkably sound public finances. Stockholm has also introduced a law that empowers Swedes to chose their providers for health care and other public services. This has led to a robust surge in entrepreneurship within the health-care sector, where more competition is bound to improve services.

Challenges such as youth unemployment, inflexible housing markets, waiting lists for health services, and too-high taxes, still plague the country. So reforms that increase economic freedoms should and will continue—the results so far have been more than encouraging. That is the real lesson to be learned from “the Swedish model.”

Also see post #303. Johnny Munkhammar is a Swedish parliamentarian.

 

[essie7777]

I think you may have missed the point completely.

Your quotes across a couple of posts doesn’t actually refer to the global financial meltdown at all.

It does however offer an opinion on how sub prime lending became such a popular lending solution at a RETAIL level not an INSTITUTIONAL level.

It completely explains how the banks and government were greedy enough to take advantage. – (i have yet to figure out how to quote your quote on here but its there)

What you completely misunderstand is that these assets are the just the start of the issue that created the financial crisis.

I assume you understand large financial companies and how they work. And that you know the difference between RETAIL and** INSTITUTIONAL** financial products.

Working on that assumption, you are fully aware that no banks holds its debts or assets without using them to try and make even more money.

In which case as i have already posted and explained, these assets were resold under a different guise as CDOs to large institutional financial companies such as Lehman’s, Merrill Lynch etc.

The SEC reduced the net capital requirement of these, so these assets were then leveraged to 40 times their value.

For demonstration purposes assume the original RETAIL asset held a value of $1bill, then the** INSTITUTIONAL** financial products sold were listed at values leverage up to $40billion.

Now for the real figures, in the months before the financial meltdown 2006/2007 the global exposure to financial products built on the assets from sub prime mortgages, securities and MBSs was $2 trillion.

When the sub-prime market collapsed this exposure had consequences globally as the financial products had been sold globally were found to built on straw.

And to think it was predicted by the New York Times as far back as 1999!!

The quote i assume you are referring to is:

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980’s.

This is laughable – it doesn’t predict anything. The article makes a one sentence editorial comment. This is not a prediction at all, especially if you look at what the asset class was doing at the time of publication. This is common place editorial that you can find every day in the financial press, this is ridiculous boot strapping.

And note, how the regulators “cracked down on banks”.

I am sure you are simply trying to be antagonistic here … you posted the quotes so i am sure you read them i context.

So your citation of what in context is a criticizm of your regulators in the US is just laughable. The author of the work is not praising the action rather he is stating it was inappropriate. So this one action by your regulators is just one of may errors they made … so** you are only adding to my argument that American GREED and lack of regulation caused the financial crisis,**

As noted above i am working on the belief that you are not trying to purposely make a hatchet job of understanding financial investments.

What you offer up for review is interesting but not relevant to the points you originally raised with me.

**They do however add further weight to the generally accepted position that US regulators and US greed created the global financial meltdown. **

 

[essie7777]

The same misrepresentation ad nauseam.

JANUARY 26, 2011.
The Swedish Model
It’s the free-market reforms, stupid
By JOHNNY MUNKHAMMAR
tinyurl.com/7hyzsc5

Extracts
Sweden’s socialism lasted only for a couple of decades, roughly during the 1970s and 1980s. And as it happens, these decades mark the only break in the modern Swedish success story.

Meanwhile, unemployment benefits, sick leave and early retirement plans have all been streamlined to encourage work. The number of people receiving such welfare—which soared during the socialist decades—has fallen by 150,000 since 2006, a main reason for Sweden’s remarkably sound public finances. Stockholm has also introduced a law that empowers Swedes to chose their providers for health care and other public services. This has led to a robust surge in entrepreneurship within the health-care sector, where more competition is bound to improve services.

Challenges such as youth unemployment, inflexible housing markets, waiting lists for health services, and too-high taxes, still plague the country. So reforms that increase economic freedoms should and will continue—the results so far have been more than encouraging. That is the real lesson to be learned from “the Swedish model.”

Also see post #303. Johnny Munkhammar is a Swedish parliamentarian.

You do realize that you are quoting someone who is pointing out the SUCCESS of a welfare state when properly managed.

Mr Johnny Munkhammar is a Swedish MP since September last year so lets not bolster his opinion as being significant politically as he hasn’t done anything yet.

For an avowed Libertarian he did however chose a unique interpretation of this in his attempts to join the EU Parliament as a EMP, his platform wasn’t quite as liberty driven then,

 

[essie7777]

I lost track of this thread on page 8. Did anyone in the remaining 17 pages get any closer to explain what is wrong with capitalism not from the results but from the principles?

It seems all criticism of capitalism is founded on some perceived result of capitalism.

No – at least not what i could see … it seems to have turned into a debate on free economy which Abu and chums are trying to convince readers is actually what the Pope says and welfare provisions are against the Church teachings.

It certainly seems to have lost its purpose.

Go figure it’s entertaining if nothing else.

 

[carn]

and welfare provisions are against the Church teachings.

How can they prove that?

As far as i undestood church teaching requires the state to do at least do the following:

a) check if anyone is starving?
No → Wait some time and then goto a)
Yes → goto b)

b) check if anyone has sufficient resources to prevent the starvation without starving himself?
No → Wait a short time and then goto a)
Yes → goto c)

c) wait very short time (shorter than the time it takes the starvation to cause death) and check if the sufficient resource anyone has provided the resources to the starving anyone so, that he is no longer starving?
Yes → Wait some time and then goto a)
No → Ask very politely and respectfully the sufficient resource anyone “Wouldn’t you like to give part of your resources to me, so i can provide the starving anyone with what he needs to survive?” and aim the crosshair at his head and then goto d)

d) check if answer is yes?
Yes → Collect resources, give them to starving anyone, wait some time and then goto a)
No → Pull trigger, collect resources, give them to starving anyone, wait some time and then goto a)

And that already is a welfare state, though some refinements to bring it more in line with church teaching could be possible, especially regarding d).

 

[essie7777]

How can they prove that?

As far as i undestood church teaching requires the state to do at least do the following:

a) check if anyone is starving?
No → Wait some time and then goto a)
Yes → goto b)

b) check if anyone has sufficient resources to prevent the starvation without starving himself?
No → Wait a short time and then goto a)
Yes → goto c)

c) wait very short time (shorter than the time it takes the starvation to cause death) and check if the sufficient resource anyone has provided the resources to the starving anyone so, that he is no longer starving?
Yes → Wait some time and then goto a)
No → Ask very politely and respectfully the sufficient resource anyone “Wouldn’t you like to give part of your resources to me, so i can provide the starving anyone with what he needs to survive?” and aim the crosshair at his head and then goto d)

d) check if answer is yes?
Yes → Collect resources, give them to starving anyone, wait some time and then goto a)
No → Pull trigger, collect resources, give them to starving anyone, wait some time and then goto a)

And that already is a welfare state, though some refinements to bring it more in line with church teaching could be possible, especially regarding d).

A very unique, and amusing interpretation on a welfare state! lol

 

[Abu]

essie7777 #639
a debate on free economy which Abu and chums are trying to convince readers is actually what the Pope says and welfare provisions are against the Church teachings
Carn #370
Collect resources, give them to starving anyone… And that already is a welfare state

False, including the fact that “welfare provisions” do not mean a Welfare State.
No one has been able to deny Pope John Paul II’s teaching which

1. approves the free economy and
2. condemns the Welfare State, while needed “welfare provisions” are mandated through the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity, with State assistance if necessary.
   Various subterfuges have been invented here to deny this clear teaching. There is no need for continued misrepresentation and confusion – follow the Church teaching.

**Catholic social teaching:

1. The free economy**
   See *Centesimus Annus *42, 1991, Bl John Paul II:
   ‘If by “capitalism” is meant an economic system which recognizes the fundamental and positive role of business, the market, private property and the resulting responsibility for the means of production, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector, then the answer is certainly in the affirmative, even though it would perhaps be more appropriate to speak of a “business economy”, “market economy” or simply “free economy”.’

Since here capitalism = free economy, and reaffirmed by Bl John Paul II is the ‘fundamental human “right to freedom of economic initiative.” ’ (*Sollicitudo Rei Socialis *(On Human Concerns), Encyclical, 1987, #42), and initiative = enterprise, it is clear what the pope means.

On Caritas in Veritate Fr John De Celles points out that Pope Benedict XVI clearly states that “The Church does not have technical solutions to offer” [CV 9]. Also…it does refer repeatedly to the ‘market economy,’ a term of art which Pope John Paul II used to refer to that form of capitalism that is ‘the path to true economic and civil progress.’

2) Condemns the Welfare State
Centesimus Annus,
#48. “Another task of the State is that of overseeing and directing the exercise of human rights in the economic sector. However, primary responsibility in this area belongs not to the State but to individuals and to the various groups and associations which make up society. The State could not directly ensure the right to work for all its citizens unless it controlled every aspect of economic life and restricted the free initiative of individuals. This does not mean, however, that the State has no competence in this domain, as was claimed by those who argued against any rules in the economic sphere. Rather, the State has a duty to sustain business activities by creating conditions which will ensure job opportunities, by stimulating those activities **where they are lacking **or by supporting them in moments of crisis.

“In recent years the range of such intervention has vastly expanded, to the point of creating a new type of State, the so-called “Welfare State”. This has happened in some countries in order to respond better to many needs and demands, by remedying forms of poverty and deprivation unworthy of the human person. However, excesses and abuses, especially in recent years, have provoked very harsh criticisms of the Welfare State, dubbed the “Social Assistance State”. Malfunctions and defects in the Social Assistance State are the result of an inadequate understanding of the tasks proper to the State. Here again the principle of subsidiarity must be respected: a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.”

The State is expected to assist the Church and society with subsidiarity and the common good the central factors, and further, in #48 of Centesimus Annus, Bl John Paul II makes sure to qualify that while the State can also exercise a substitute function in social sectors or business systems, “Such supplementary interventions, which are justified by urgent reasons touching the common good, must be as brief as possible, so as to avoid removing permanently from society and business systems the functions which are properly theirs, and so as to avoid enlarging excessively the sphere of State intervention to the detriment of both economic and civil freedom.”

Rest assured there is really no reason to be led astray.

 

[carn]

False, including the fact that “welfare provisions” do not mean a Welfare State.

Then your discussion shold focus on what welfare state actually is, because what the Pope understands as welfare state might not be identical to what others understand. And the cited words do not contain an accurate description (and maybe none is possible).

 

[John21652]

No one disputes there were debts held by Greece but where that money was being spent was not on the welfare system which was the point you made and i was addressing.

You originally tried to tell us Greece was in financial trouble because of the high costs associated with entering the E. U. At least now you are admitting their profligate spending caused their indebtedness before acceding to E.U membership. The penny is dropping…

Erm point above. Not sure how the Olympics overspending can be tracked to the cost of welfare. As that was the point i was responding to. Here you seem to agree with me that it is more than that???

Noone tried to tie the Olympic spending to the cost of welfare. Greece was awarded the Olympics in 2000 and thus began even more profligate spending and with corruption attached. That is, Greece began racking up more debt some seven years before the global economic crisis.

That statement is not in itself incorrect, however the amounts spent on the welfare state are dwarfed by other government spending which pushed them into debt.

So you are saying a Greek expert is wrong when he said the bankruptcy in Greece is attributable to two giant political parties that competitively engaged in welfare populism" ? Again, your obtuseness is showing. “Welfare populism” includes spending other than direct welfare payments. Go look up what the term means.

So you are acknowledging that Greece was exposed to the toxic assets which abounded after the meltdown in 2007-2008? So they then did suffer as a consequence?

You are being blatantly dishonest. I wrote that Greece was in debt prior to joining the E. U. You tried to tell us that Greece went into debt because of the high costs associated with joining. I linked to an article which showed that the borrowings from Goldman Sachs was to cover up the already existing debt.

The independent analysis of the Greek application (2005 OECD Report) into the EU had their fiddled figures concluded the variance was between 0.7 to 1 percentage point of GDP, depending on the accountancy rules used which changed in 2000, …

“A study by forensic accountants has found that data submitted by Greece to Eurostat in 1999 had a statistical distribution indicative of manipulation”. Now, doesn’t that fit with Greece having one of the highest corruption figures in Europe!

Interest rates fell because of the financial crisis being felt globally, if Greece’s profligacy went unchecked that doesn’t conclude that is was spending solely on welfare …

Can’t help yourself can you? I wrote that interest rates fell because of the insurge of E.U funds made available to Greece upon joining the E. U. It was available in many forms, for adjustment measures to enable the Greek economy to ‘catch up’. Considering how Greece joined the E. U. in 2000, some eight years before the interest rate fall you write of, your paragraph begins to look shrill in its inventiveness.

And stop throwing in red herrings. I, nor anyone else, wrote that Greece was spending solely on welfare.

Your comments about the pension system are part true and part not. The pension system is generous, but not just to civil servants. However before you focus simply on that sentence consider this the reason it is so generous is that Greece still operates a final salary pension scheme. They stick to it as they believe it shields the population suffering from market fluctuations, which it does. However when the investments behind it are too exposed to toxic assets the cost is expensive to recoup.

Market fluctuations? In a country where some 43% of all economic activity is from the public sector?!! Greece owes the world $300 billion. The sovereign debt crisis sparked in late 2009 by Greece simply showed to the world what Greece had been hiding. Now, again please, tell us how the population will be shielded from market fluctuations?

.

Because the fishing industry had no relation to the banking collapse!

I never said it did.

I must have missed where you’re from.

Every post I make tells you.

The markets you mention are insular and have little international exposure at both a Sovereign debt level or at a high enough level to international banking debt for it to be significant.

China in’t insular and neither is my country.

It must be so frustrating for those who advocate for free economies, as Sweden isn’t one.Their GDP (2010) per capita: $48,832. and an annual GDP growth rate (2010): 5.5%.

False. Sweden forecast growth for 2012 is -1%. Stop being disnegenuous. We showed you the facts. Sweden is winding back its welfare. Here’s the link and the quote it contains *“Taxes on labor have been cut and the country’s once-lavish welfare state is being squeezed.” *

With all of the welfare state services, generous pensions, education, childcare, they seem to be doing great.

That’s why we get headlines like this out of Europe - The Welfare State: The Root Of Europe’s Problems.
The Welfare State RIP
Europes Ailing Social Model

For comparison the annual World growth rate by GDP is 4.44% and the US lags behind at 2.85% for the same year 2010.

Sweden’s forecast growth rate is below 1% for 2012. Greece -5%. Ireland -1%. Iceland -3%. United Kingdom 1.2%. The U.S is lagging because it has bogged down its market economy in red tape, as Horwitz explains.

 

[John21652]

Then your discussion shold focus on what welfare state actually is, because what the Pope understands as welfare state might not be identical to what others understand. And the cited words do not contain an accurate description (and maybe none is possible).

welfare state is a government or country that has an overbearing and overreaching “social safety net” and a system of redistribution of wealth that results in the shift of personal financial responsibility from the citizen to the state.

Greece is, by definition, a welfare state.

Latest News: Greece is expanding its welfare state by including pedophiles, exhibitionists and kleptomaniacs as disabilities to which government funds will be allocated.

The National Confederation of Disabled People called the action “incomprehensible,” and said pedophiles are now awarded a higher government disability pay than some people who have received organ transplants.

No wonder greece is going broke.

 

[essie7777]

You originally tried to tell us Greece was in financial trouble because of the high costs associated with entering the E. U.

I didn’t state a reason for their debt in the post you are trying to malign here. Don’t try and put words in my mouth. If you’re unclear simply ask!!!

Noone tried to tie the Olympic spending to the cost of welfare.

ROFL — Unfortunately you make it so easy to point out the flaws in your comment. We were discussing the cost of the welfare state and its impact in Greece. 1/2way thru your comment you then throw in how expensive the Olympic games were.fare state

I simply pointed out and asked how YOU thought this was relevant enough to being up.

Again, your obtuseness is showing. “Welfare populism” includes spending other than direct welfare payments. Go look up what the term means.

We were discussing the cost of the welfare state – now with your very libertarian perspective you are trying to say that what you actually meant was welfare populism???

Seriously this is now passing for comedy writing. You are incapable of defending one position so change your position to see if that makes more sense.

I linked to an article which showed that the borrowings from Goldman Sachs was to cover up the already existing debt.

Yep, you did however you clearly need to look at time lines here – make your mind up are you discussing debt pre joining the EU or after??? You’re inconsistent with your point of view again.

“A study by forensic accountants has found that data submitted by Greece to Eurostat in 1999 had a statistical distribution indicative of manipulation”.

seriously ROFL – you really shouldn’t take your data from Wikipedia without tracking the factual data. Misquoting is a huge flaw of yours.

Can’t help yourself can you? I wrote that interest rates fell because of the insurge of E.U funds made available to Greece upon joining the E. U.

Reread your own comments as no you didn’t lol

some eight years before the interest rate fall you write of,

Actually you are again wrong as i am pretty sure i have discussed the lowering of interest rates in the decade before the financial meltdown then the impact of said crisis on interest rates.

And stop throwing in red herrings. I, nor anyone else, wrote that Greece was spending solely on welfare.

What Abu stated very clearly is it was the reason for their crisis and when i challenged that this sparked this whole thread of comments and personal attacks from you.

Greece owes the world $300 billion. The sovereign debt crisis sparked in late 2009 by Greece simply showed to the world what Greece had been hiding.

Honestly, your comments are really showing a complete lack of understanding and no appreciation for fact:
Greece owes $163billion
Australia owes - Over $1 Trillion
US owes $14 Trillion

Now, again please, tell us how the population will be shielded from market fluctuations?

Nothing like a huge misquote --as i stated a final salary pension protects its population from market fluctuations.

You are showing again that you need to try and manipulate people’s comments to desperately get them to fit your perspective.

Every post I make tells you. China in’t insular and neither is my country.

You don’t at all but i hear Australia’s nice this time of year, which according to your profile is where you are based.

False. Sweden forecast growth for 2012 is -1%. Stop being disnegenuous. We showed you the facts. Sweden is winding back its welfare.

You are seriously desperate at this point --they aren’t winding down the welfare state they are making it more efficient. They are not cutting services. You demonstrated OPINION – but every source sates they have a welfare state and how good it is.

And out of curiosity which financial institution did you take the projection from as most as of 9am British time according to Reuters online market data have the growth varying between 0.7 and 1.1%.

that’s why most discussions on annual growth GDP are never based on projections as these vary monthly and only backwards analysis can give the true picture!.

Sweden’s forecast growth rate is below 1% for 2012. Greece -5%. Ireland -1%. Iceland -3%. United Kingdom 1.2%. The U.S is lagging because it has bogged down its market economy in red tape, as Horwitz explains.

You do notice how this quote from your comment and the one above disagree??

Hmm anyway moving from the 2010 figures i quoted, bypassing Sweden’s impressive 4.5% GDP growth in 2011, the figures you post still show they are one of the most active and success economies … please keep trying to dispute what i am saying as it will only further my arguments!!! thumbsup:

That’s why we get headlines like this out of Europe -

I’m not even going to point out the clear bias in your choice of examples.
…

As i commented to another poster – it’s certainly entertaining reading what you write because as of yet you haven’t said anything that in any discussion that in anyway educates me away from my position as you consistently fail to respond to FACTS given to you. You pick “quotes” from my comments that manipulate their content then try and go off running in that direction.

 

[essie7777]

Then your discussion shold focus on what welfare state actually is, because what the Pope understands as welfare state might not be identical to what others understand. And the cited words do not contain an accurate description (and maybe none is possible).

Good luck with that Abu is actually very good at quoting Papal papers but always puts his own interpretation on them and claims the context and total meaning from the whole document is actually wrong … strikes me he trying to rewrite the Popes and the Church’s position constantly.

You have though highlighted the biggest flaw in his comments – cited words that are not accurate!