The Economic Ignorance of the Modern Right

[eyeball]

The pity is you think that Ottawa can solve problems.

The problem is you can't read. I clearly said what about the problems we could solve, not Ottawa. Ottawa is just a thing, a tool in the wrong hands.

Temerity is the wrong word in this case. "Effrontery" is what that would be.

Only to the rich and sycophants thereof.

[GostHacked]

We've heard about the problem banks are having overseas, well by the article, I just read, that same rule, where if a bank fails or gets into financial trouble, the government of Canada will not bail it out, instead, in the Economic Action Plan 2013 in the last budget, banks will be alllowed to go into banks accounts in Canada and take the money they need , says this reporter. The government is saying they won't used taxpayers money to bail out banks but they are, aren't they by this rule, if its true??? Do you believe this is true? http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-confiscation-of-savings-in-canada-cyprus-style-bail-ins-proposed-by-ottawa-government/5329263

I've been reading and thinking the same thing. Our banks could very well be in trouble, but it's getting passed off as no big issue. Typical Canadian style.

[Topaz]

Here's the government what the saying it won't take money from account but by the end of the article is really is saying the banks could/would if it got in trouble. Time to go to credit unions?? http://ca.finance.yahoo.com/blogs/balance-sheet/ottawa-clarifies-cyprus-style-bail-language-federal-budget-195829237.html

[Argus]

Here's the government what the saying it won't take money from account but by the end of the article is really is saying the banks could/would if it got in trouble. Time to go to credit unions?? http://ca.finance.yahoo.com/blogs/balance-sheet/ottawa-clarifies-cyprus-style-bail-language-federal-budget-195829237.html

I don't see the big deal here. Even in Cyprus they exempted people with under $100,000 in their bank account. And honestly, who here keeps large amounts of cash in a bank account? My money is in my bank account to pay bills with a monthly discretionary amount added on top. After that, the money goes into investment accounts, inc. my RRSP account.

[Bonam]

After that, the money goes into investment accounts, inc. my RRSP account.

And once the precedent of raiding bank accounts has been set, who is to say the government won't someday pass rules allowing your investment accounts, RRSPs, etc, to be raided?

[GostHacked]

I don't see the big deal here. Even in Cyprus they exempted people with under $100,000 in their bank account. And honestly, who here keeps large amounts of cash in a bank account? My money is in my bank account to pay bills with a monthly discretionary amount added on top. After that, the money goes into investment accounts, inc. my RRSP account.

Your money is not safe either way. Relatives of mine recently lost a few hundred grand via some failed investments. Not all investments turn up winners.

What they are saying is that because the banks made horrible business decisions, the government is allowing the banks to steal money right from personal bank accounts so the business of the bank can continue and to help restore faith in the banking system. WTF?!?

This is government sanctioned theft. This is robbery. People go to jail for robbing a bank. The banks get to rob you and no jail time or repercussions. WTF?

You don't see the big deal with banks stealing people's money? Would you mind your bank stealing part of your money?

[Canuckistani]

Your money is not safe either way. Relatives of mine recently lost a few hundred grand via some failed investments. Not all investments turn up winners.

What they are saying is that because the banks made horrible business decisions, the government is allowing the banks to steal money right from personal bank accounts so the business of the bank can continue and to help restore faith in the banking system. WTF?!?

This is government sanctioned theft. This is robbery. People go to jail for robbing a bank. The banks get to rob you and no jail time or repercussions. WTF?

You don't see the big deal with banks stealing people's money? Would you mind your bank stealing part of your money?

What's the alternative? Everybody knows when you put your money in a bank, theres some risk, same as putting it anywhere else. Why should the Germans have to pay because the Cypriots elected govt three times that made for a freewheeling banking sector - they were inviting in the dirty money. If they didn't get the bailout, even depostis below 100k wouldn't be safe - how is that any better.

Maybe govts should set up money warehouses - you put in your money and it's guaranteed to be there. Thing is, you'd have to pay to do that, since it costs money to run the place, and insure it against theft or what have you. I wonder how much business a place like that would do during good times? My guess is very little, then when things got dicey everybody would try to put in their money. And of course, if a place like that was popular, it would take a bunch of money out of circulation, no leveraging on being lent out for businesses etc - much less growth.

Edited April 7, 2013 by Canuckistani

[Argus]

And once the precedent of raiding bank accounts has been set, who is to say the government won't someday pass rules allowing your investment accounts, RRSPs, etc, to be raided?

First of all, the odds of that happening would be enormous even if it were allowed by the government. The banks are in very good financial shape, and any bank which raided bank accounts would, I think, be out of business before long, as customers withdrew all the rest of their cash. Anyway, the point is moot. The government has no intention of allowing bank accounts to be used to prop up banks.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/ottawas-bail-in-plan-protects-deposits/article10823685/

[eyeball]

Since deposits are one form of bank liability, that wording prompted immediate comparisons to the banking crisis in Cyprus,

The wording of a financial instrument as mouthed by a politician that you can take to the bank? Okay we're definitely in Crazyville now.

[GostHacked]

What's the alternative? Everybody knows when you put your money in a bank, theres some risk, same as putting it anywhere else. Why should the Germans have to pay because the Cypriots elected govt three times that made for a freewheeling banking sector - they were inviting in the dirty money. If they didn't get the bailout, even depostis below 100k wouldn't be safe - how is that any better.

Countries like Cyprus would not be able to enter the EU without approval from Germany. Not to mention if the banks need to go into your private account to pay off their debts, why the hell are we even putting up with this?

This is a direct government sanctioned theft of personal banks accounts so they can pay off their debts because of their crappy business practices and high risk investments.

The bank is playing fast and loose with everyones investments and now their personal accounts as well.

If this happens to come here, are you willing to help them out? If not, why not?

Maybe govts should set up money warehouses - you put in your money and it's guaranteed to be there. Thing is, you'd have to pay to do that, since it costs money to run the place, and insure it against theft or what have you. I wonder how much business a place like that would do during good times? My guess is very little, then when things got dicey everybody would try to put in their money. And of course, if a place like that was popular, it would take a bunch of money out of circulation, no leveraging on being lent out for businesses etc - much less growth.

Governments can't balance a budget, they cannot get out of debt, they always spend more than they make. You sure you want these idiots who cannot even reign in the banksters that are robbing us to make sure our money is safe? Edited April 7, 2013 by GostHacked

[Pliny]

The problem is you can't read.

Ha Ha. The problem is more with the writer.

I clearly said what about the problems we could solve, not Ottawa. Ottawa is just a thing, a tool in the wrong hands.

You clearly said Ottawa would collect it. If they collect it they will spend it, not allow "us" to solve problems.

[eyeball]

You clearly said Ottawa would collect it.

That's what I said alright.

If they collect it they will spend it, not allow "us" to solve problems.

That's why I said Ottawa is a tool in the wrong hands. Something we need to remedy.

I think much of the modern right's economic ignorance stems from it's often blind ignorance of governance.

[Pliny]

That's what I said alright.

That's why I said Ottawa is a tool in the wrong hands. Something we need to remedy.

I think much of the modern right's economic ignorance stems from it's often blind ignorance of governance.

Ignorance of governance, as you call it, is directly related to economic ignorance. The left concerns itself with things like gaps in income levels, taxing the rich and ending poverty by doing so, creating social justice, leveling the playing field, saving the environment, among other things. Hardly concerning themselves with economics whatsoever. Plus, has government ever accomplished any of these things in our history? When they start to it can be used as a signal to heraldthe end of the nation or Empire.

The right are probably just as economically ignorant but at least they don't ask government to run their lives or the lives of the left to the same degree the left demands they run the lives of the right and everyone else. Maybe some do but they're getting into fascist/socialist territory

Edited April 16, 2013 by Pliny

[eyeball]

The left...blah blah blah...

The right are probably just as economically ignorant but at least they don't ask government to run their lives to the same degree the left does.

If anything the right seems more interested in asking the government to run other people's lives.

[Pliny]

If anything the right seems more interested in asking the government to run other people's lives.

I don't think that of those that wish limited government and I don't know how limited government reconciles with your

concept of running other people's lives.

[eyeball]

I think that of social conservatives who seem to think it's appropriate for the government to impose their moral on everyone else. And I think that about corporations and institutions that want to have their cake and eat most of everyone else's too.

My concept of limited government is this - the only thing I want bring under control is the government. I just don't know how else you could ever hope to limit it otherwise.

Do you ever get the sense we both want the same thing here but we just keep talking past one another?

[Pliny]

I think that of social conservatives who seem to think it's appropriate for the government to impose their moral on everyone else. And I think that about corporations and institutions that want to have their cake and eat most of everyone else's too.

My concept of limited government is this - the only thing I want bring under control is the government. I just don't know how else you could ever hope to limit it otherwise.

Do you ever get the sense we both want the same thing here but we just keep talking past one another?

Yes, I do.

Firstly, I am not a social conservative. However, I do personally hold what would be considered conservative mores and values. For example I am anti-drug and pro-life but do not consider these things to be political problems and not discussed politically. Drugs and abortions should not be the subject of legislation as to their legality.

In my view, the greatest power government has is control over the money supply. There would not be any way to limit government other than to strip them of that power. They also enslave their citizens with the enactment of an income tax.

It is nothing less than extortion and if you or I tried living off the avails of others we would certainly be indicted for it. Government should find other means of taxation and if they limited themselves to their true mandate would be amply funded.

Correct me if I am wrong but I think you wish government to do things right and be under control of the people rather than be limited. By limited I mean in the scope of its mandate, so it does not have to be the leviathan it claims it needs to be and which most voters believe it needs to be.

[eyeball]

In my view, the greatest power government has is control over the money supply. There would not be any way to limit government other than to strip them of that power.

In my view the power will still be there but just in different hands, probably corporate. The government would still hold the reins since it is what breathes life into corporations when it grants them their charters. The only remedy I see to that is to transfer this ability into the hands of regional governments and much closer to the voters most affected by the power they wield.

[Pliny]

In my view the power will still be there but just in different hands, probably corporate.

Well, you have to consider what power there is in the ability to create money out of thin air. It is vast. I am not

suggesting that a corporation, any corporation or any man, have the power to be able to do this. Once we passed the

bartering stage of an economy and developed money out of the concept of it being the most malleable and recognizably

exchangeable commodity, the social ramifications were that products could be exchanged for money and trade was

facilitated benefiting everyone. Money has to remain in the hands of the people in order for an economy to thrive. there is no sense making products or bringing products to market unless people can buy them. They should be able to buy them if not with money then by barter or by their personal production or labour. The system should not entirely be dependent upon money, as money only facilitates trade. It has several other functions as well such as a store of value, but that

is for another thread. If government could not deficit finance, ie borrow money printed out of thin air from the central bank, it would have to downsize like any organization would in an economic downturn.

Therefore if its policies hurt the economy, it would have to change them to promote a real economy instead of floating a propped up house of cards.

The government would still hold the reins since it is what breathes life into corporations when it grants them their charters. The only remedy I see to that is to transfer this ability into the hands of regional governments and much closer to the voters most affected by the power they wield.

The governments power is in its ability to make legislation. If it made legislation that hurt the economy they should be held accountable. It would soon learn that it had no business trying to regulate the

economy and/or override the charity of a prosperous society. We are learning that the hard way right now.

There are a few banking practices that need to be corrected as well, fractional reserve banking being one of the worst

practices.

But was I right in assuming you feel the necessity for government big or little, but it just needs to be somehow held

accountable and under control of the people?

Edited April 20, 2013 by Pliny

[eyeball]

But was I right in assuming you feel the necessity for government big or little, but it just needs to be somehow held

accountable and under control of the people?

Not for long if things keep deteriorating. I'm still fit enough that I think I could survive in a state of anarchy.

But seriously? Yes accountability, not just somehow though, I've long suggested we effectively saturate the government with microphones and CCTV. The complete opposite of Big Brother monitoring society but for the same reason.

Speaking of Orwellian overtones what do you think of a Permission to Classify Act as opposed to the Freedom of Information Act? I'm not saying that governments won't have reasons to keep secrets just that they should have to justify making them.

[Pliny]

Not for long if things keep deteriorating. I'm still fit enough that I think I could survive in a state of anarchy.

So that's a "yes"? I am not an anarchist by any stretch. I just think government should be restricted in their mandate not branching out into running every aspect of people's lives. The left and the right are both guilty in voting for

government to exceed their mandate and grant them privileges and entitlements.

But seriously? Yes accountability, not just somehow though, I've long suggested we effectively saturate the government with microphones and CCTV. The complete opposite of Big Brother monitoring society but for the same reason.

I agree if they wish to procure audio and video information they can ask it of the private sector - which needs to know more about what they are doing than what the private citizen is doing.

Speaking of Orwellian overtones what do you think of a Permission to Classify Act as opposed to the Freedom of Information Act? I'm not saying that governments won't have reasons to keep secrets just that they should have to justify making them.

Under either act they would have to justify making them.

[August1991]

Bump.

Go to my OP. What explanation does the Modern Right have for this situation?

They are like the global warming/climate change environmentalists. "Just wait and see! Eventually, we'll be right!"

----

Oh my, there is a lesson in the scientific method in these two examples.

Edited September 27, 2013 by August1991

[dre]

Bump.

Go to my OP. What explanation does the Modern Right have for this situation?

They are like the global warming/climate change environmentalists. "Just wait and see! Eventually, we'll be right!"

----

Oh my, there is a lesson in the scientific method in these two examples.

Why on earth would you bump this? Did you not read the replies? The assertions you made in the OP have already been dealth with...

[bleeding heart]

Also, there's a demonstrable difference between the "Dismal science" of Economics and, well, actual science.

Edited September 29, 2013 by bleeding heart