[Mind's Eye] Re: What We Should Know On World Debt

I don't know if it's "moral" but it definitely is how most corrections
are implemented.

On Oct 2, 1:14 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The suggested debt forgiveness and claw-back from the rich would
> favour a few who have been personally spendthrift, disfavour
> frugalsavers and haveanumber ofother effects we wouldn't generally
> want - but maybe it's moral to go ahead despite the moral hazard?
>
> On Oct 2, 2:28 pm, "rigs...@yahoo.com" <rigs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > My eldest son and I are estranged because he demanded I bail him out
> > of debt and my lawyer said "no". So he blew up along with his bridge
> > to me and his brothers and sister. And I have heard similar stories.
> > $5. sounds okay. :-)
>
> > On Oct 1, 7:35 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://www.bcg.com/documents/file87307.pdf
>
> > > The above link is to a paper put out at Boston Consulting Group
> > > (BCG).  Survivors of business strategy lectures may remember their
> > > stars, cash cows, dogs and question mark portfolio management.  The
> > > summary might read that our politicians aren't telling us the truth on
> > > world debt and are playing for time.  The big problem is facing up to
> > > the facts.  These facts have been known to some of us for a couple of
> > > decades and in more ideological form since 1900.  The US and Europe
> > > need to cut debt other than through IMF austerity lunacy by amounts so
> > > large most banks will be bankrupt and their shareholders left with
> > > whatever market value left.  The banks would go into temporary
> > > nationalisation to be cleaned up and set back on truly regulated
> > > keel.  A lot of debt will just have to be written off, as in cutting
> > > what's owed on mortgages and the rich will have to take a big haircut
> > > through assets taxes (one off).
>
> > > Names to look for if interested include Steve Keen and David Graeber.
> > > It's been established a long time that we haven't been growing much
> > > through work in 30 years,instead transferring investment to sweat shop
> > > economies and speculative bubbles including housing and organised
> > > crime banksterism.  Our governments must know.
>
> > > So-called 'moal hazard' is involved in any solution to the mess -
> > > debts have to be forgiven and this raises the issue of rewarding daft
> > > or irresponsible borrowing.  This feels wrong.  I had an incidence
> > > with my grandson who put a month's allowance into buying a new guitar
> > > (Crafter - great tone) but turned up demanding it.  He got a fiver,
> > > but should really have gone away empty handed.  We could get in
> > > discussion on moral hazard, but we really ought to consider that the
> > > banks are duplicitous about it - they've been highly irresponsible and
> > > don't want to face the consequences any more than a poor family facing
> > > eviction and foreclosure.
>
> > > There are a lot of moral issues like this where we can establish the
> > > principle - but also see powerful groups evading the principle, often
> > > with threat that national or global collapse will occur if they are
> > > treated like everyone else.  This is not capitalism under rule of law,
> > > or democracy but oligarchy.  We are generally quick to scorn the
> > > spendthrift (as in that story on the grasshopper and ant), but what
> > > stops us getting after it on the massive scale of global banksterism?
> > > The facts are as clear as in the more or less neo-con BCG  The only
> > > place, other than in detail, I disagree concerns the notion that
> > > uncompetitive countries should cut wages - we need Aa more complex
> > > formula that puts liquid assets (more or less cash) back in the hands
> > > of the less well off.  Roughly, we have seen this decline from 14% to
> > > 1% in the bottom have-nots comprising 50% of our peoples.  A return to
> > > this through New Deal work projects is needed.
>
> > > Substantial cowardice is involved in being prepared to slate peers for
> > > indiscretions and fall for the lies told by the powerful.  And this is
> > > why I'm not a democrat.  Our systems need to change away from this
> > > form of govern-mentality in which arguments are directed at ignorance
> > > to garner votes.  But how can we do this without another form of
> > > elitism?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -