Iceland overthrows government, banks; media suppresses news

[Atreus21]

There are lots and lots of ways a corporation can and will affect you regardless of whether or not they see a dime of your money.

Like what?

 

[momeNt]

No, the mistake was 'Libertarian' policies allowing the banks to become 'too big to fail' and pursue corrupt and excessively risky policies endangering the economy.

Bailing them out wasn't a 'mistake', it was simply the ransom the banks could demand because of the errors allowing them to get to the point they had.

In libertarianism, nothing is too big to fail.

 

[Munky]

Patience.... eventually the reality of math will catch up with TBTF banks and the governments that support them. Just look at the mess over in Europe - no matter how the animals rearranged the chairs, they still couldn't play any music, heheh.

 

[senseamp]

Compare Iceland which did the right thing and let private losses stay private, and Ireland, which bailed out the banks and put the whole country, which until then had excellent fiscal management, at risk of default. Forcing austerity on the innocent to protect the guilty from the consequences of their bad bets.

 

[soulcougher73]

Good for them. Why should they have to pay the piper for greedy bankers that ruined and exploited that country.

 

[Craig234]

In libertarianism, nothing is too big to fail.

Wrong. In Libertarianism, too big to fail has even more power and wealth.

Libertarians are ignorant of the effects of their own ideology. They have this pretty little fantasy that keeps them in delusion supporting bad ideology.

Libertarians need to learn the idea of 'economic freedom', where poverty enslaves.

 

[Craig234]

Like what?

Like:

- controlling who your politicians are
- using their power to extract wealth from society
- putting small businesses out of business
- influencing labor policies
- influencing the goods and services you can buy; for example, 3 or 5 mega corporations owning 90% of all media greatly affects your media choices
- pollution and harming the environment
- pushing agendas such as de-regulation, weakening your rights to sue for harm
- pushing anti-union policies
- increasing concentration of wealth, creating tycoons who can pursue radical political agendas

Those are a few examples.

 

[Chaosblade02]

If Americans had and sense they would be doing that here too. Not just the banks, but the government. And I'm not talking about the tea party.

 

[Nebor]

The tags on this thread just made me giggle.

 

[Jhhnn]

Compare Iceland which did the right thing and let private losses stay private, and Ireland, which bailed out the banks and put the whole country, which until then had excellent fiscal management, at risk of default. Forcing austerity on the innocent to protect the guilty from the consequences of their bad bets.

That's not quite what happened, however. Iceland's then "Conservative" govt assumed the bankers' debts, as with Ireland, and now the entities that lent the govt the money to do so are trying to beat the cash out of both countries.

Icelanders balked, formed a new govt, but the country itself is still theoretically on the hook to pay back the loans. How it'll play out is anybody's guess, but Iceland's creditors will have great difficulty getting blood out of an unwilling turnip. There's not a helluva lot they can do if Icelanders tell 'em to stuff it.

Iceland has one advantage over Ireland, in the sense that they control their own currency. As part of the EU, the Irish don't.

 

[Double Trouble]

There are lots and lots of ways a corporation can and will affect you regardless of whether or not they see a dime of your money.

As much as government (at any level)? No, I don't think so. Sure, there are ways you can be impacted by corporations, but not nearly to the same degree, and a corporation can't make laws that force me to do things at the risk of going to prison (unless it's through a crooked government).

 

[fskimospy]

Like what?

If a corporation manufactures widgets in a way that creates a lot of pollution in your backyard, it doesn't really matter if you're buying them or not. The collapse of Lehman Bros. affected the entire economy even if you didn't have a dime invested with them, etc, etc.

 

[fskimospy]

As much as government (at any level)? No, I don't think so. Sure, there are ways you can be impacted by corporations, but not nearly to the same degree, and a corporation can't make laws that force me to do things at the risk of going to prison (unless it's through a crooked government).

The reason a corporation can't do that is because of government.

 

[QuantumPion]

Like:

- controlling who your politicians are
- using their power to extract wealth from society
- putting small businesses out of business
- influencing labor policies
- influencing the goods and services you can buy; for example, 3 or 5 mega corporations owning 90% of all media greatly affects your media choices
- pollution and harming the environment
- pushing agendas such as de-regulation, weakening your rights to sue for harm
- pushing anti-union policies
- increasing concentration of wealth, creating tycoons who can pursue radical political agendas

Those are a few examples.

-Corporations do not vote.

-Meaningless progressive meme.

-Corporations don't put anyone out of business. Small businesses go out of business because their customers decide to buy cheaper products from larger, more efficienct companies. If customers wanted small businesses to remain, they would voluntarily pay higher prices and shop there. They usually don't.

-Corporations influence labor policies to allow more employment. Unions aim to block non-Union employment to secure an artificially high wage for themselves.

-Oh noes, better have the government run all the media out of fairness instead.

-As opposed to the clean, environmentally friendly government run economies of India, China, Soviet Union, etc.

-As opposed to government regulations which eliminate your right to sue for harm.

-As opposed to pushing anti-freedom policies.

-As opposed to government, where no one is rich and everyone is altruistic.

Welcome to reality. Sorry, but there is no escape. :biggrin:

 

[sm625]

If terrorists had a nuclear bomb in a major American city and would kill millions of Americans if we didn't let someone they wanted out of jail, you can say all day that giving in to their demands creates a sort of 'moral hazard', rewards terrorism, etc. But the fact is once it's gotten to that point the only correct decision is to do it.

Says you. Fortunately not everyone thinks that way. Some people would rather give their lives than enable scum of the earth to gain more power and control. You cannot make moral judgments about when it is better to give into terrorist demands, even if it could save a million lives. Doing so could result in 10x more deaths down the road. It is better to just give them the finger. Honor lasts longer than any flesh and bone.

 

[sm625]

The reason we dont hear about Iceland is because they are not sure if they are going to be able to make a pariah out of Iceland. If they are able to, then we will be sure the airwaves will be pumped full of garbage propaganda about how the banksters should always be bailed out. It is really disgusting what some of you actually believe. Those people are filth and scum of the earth and they should be thrown in prison, not given bailouts when they threaten armageddon. But anyway it is far more likely that Iceland experiences stellar growth and prosperity due to their decision. Expect no controlled media coverage if that happens. Expect a nuke-initiated volcanic eruption or major terrorist attack there.

 

[Darwin333]

That's not quite what happened, however. Iceland's then "Conservative" govt assumed the bankers' debts, as with Ireland, and now the entities that lent the govt the money to do so are trying to beat the cash out of both countries.

Icelanders balked, formed a new govt, but the country itself is still theoretically on the hook to pay back the loans. How it'll play out is anybody's guess, but Iceland's creditors will have great difficulty getting blood out of an unwilling turnip. There's not a helluva lot they can do if Icelanders tell 'em to stuff it.

Iceland has one advantage over Ireland, in the sense that they control their own currency. As part of the EU, the Irish don't.

Has nothing to do with control of their currency and everything to do with the people willing to bust out the pitchforks should any politicians even mention giving the thieves their illgotten loot.

 

[momeNt]

Wrong. In Libertarianism, too big to fail has even more power and wealth.

Libertarians are ignorant of the effects of their own ideology. They have this pretty little fantasy that keeps them in delusion supporting bad ideology.

Libertarians need to learn the idea of 'economic freedom', where poverty enslaves.

I really wish you would pick up a book and read a little bit about Austrian economics and other similarly libertarian ideas before acting like you have any clue about them.

 

[fskimospy]

I really wish you would pick up a book and read a little bit about Austrian economics and other similarly libertarian ideas before acting like you have any clue about them.

Austrian economics are largely ignored today because they are generally unscientific and frequently doesn't offer testable predictions. My favorite quote is from von Mises when he said (edit) something to the effect of 'Economic history can neither prove nor disprove the teachings of Economic theory'. Ie: nothing so pesky as facts can disprove what he's saying.

It's basically the ATPN of economics, no amount of proof can alter their opinions.

 

[momeNt]

Austrian economics are largely ignored today because they are generally unscientific and frequently doesn't offer testable predictions. My favorite quote is from von Mises when he said (edit) something to the effect of 'Economic history can neither prove nor disprove the teachings of Economic theory'. Ie: nothing so pesky as facts can disprove what he's saying.

It's basically the ATPN of economics, no amount of proof can alter their opinions.

Excellent quote, Mises largest contribution to economic theory is the idea that praxeology (study of human action) should be used in economics, which apparently is largely ignored by many economists according to you because it does indeed defy the study of economics as a strict science. The scientific method and empirical testing cannot possibly hope to explain something so complex as the world economy when the ability to control variables is impossible.

As for the notion of "proof" this would stem back to how Austrian economics actually views the practice of economics. Mainstream economists will resort to intricate calculations and graphs in an attempt to validate their predictions and then consider the outcome a test of their hypothesis. This process inherently ignores all the other factors that could be in favor or against the outcome, and to consider our current complex economy a test of an hypothesis is rather naive.

So many on these forums do something very similar when attempting to refute Austrian economics, "No country is on a gold standard, therefore it is wrong". Yes, definitely as scientific as how lab technicians test antibiotics... something truly scientific and empirical.

 

[fskimospy]

Excellent quote, Mises largest contribution to economic theory is the idea that praxeology (study of human action) should be used in economics, which apparently is largely ignored by many economists according to you because it does indeed defy the study of economics as a strict science. The scientific method and empirical testing cannot possibly hope to explain something so complex as the world economy when the ability to control variables is impossible.

As for the notion of "proof" this would stem back to how Austrian economics actually views the practice of economics. Mainstream economists will resort to intricate calculations and graphs in an attempt to validate their predictions and then consider the outcome a test of their hypothesis. This process inherently ignores all the other factors that could be in favor or against the outcome, and to consider our current complex economy a test of an hypothesis is rather naive.

So many on these forums do something very similar when attempting to refute Austrian economics, "No country is on a gold standard, therefore it is wrong". Yes, definitely as scientific as how lab technicians test antibiotics... something truly scientific and empirical.

I'm unaware of anyone that has said the gold standard is wrong because no one uses it, what they say is that no one uses it because it is wrong.

What you're basically saying is that you agree that Austrian economics explicitly disavows the ability to make testable predictions. That's fine if you want to look at the world that way, but don't be surprised when you aren't taken seriously.

 

[momeNt]

I'm unaware of anyone that has said the gold standard is wrong because no one uses it, what they say is that no one uses it because it is wrong.

What you're basically saying is that you agree that Austrian economics explicitly disavows the ability to make testable predictions. That's fine if you want to look at the world that way, but don't be surprised when you aren't taken seriously.

The ability to make testable predictions in ECONOMICS. Obviously the real sciences work differently than a study predicting the outcome of how a group of people think and act.

 

[fskimospy]

The ability to make testable predictions in ECONOMICS. Obviously the real sciences work differently than a study predicting the outcome of how a group of people think and act.

Right. So by their own logic their theories can never be disproven. Hooray for them. As I said in the other thread it's not an economic theory, it's a religion. I'm glad it brings you comfort, but don't expect the rest of us to join the cult.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

With the caveat that what has happened is as described it looks like the icelandic people tossed both the corporations and their government. Corruption and self interest are comfortable in both settings.

 

[Nebor]

Right. So by their own logic their theories can never be disproven. Hooray for them. As I said in the other thread it's not an economic theory, it's a religion. I'm glad it brings you comfort, but don't expect the rest of us to join the cult.

What he's saying is, economics being an inherently soft science, you can't make realistic theories and predictions because human beings are not always rational. You can assume many constraints, and then come up with a testable theory, but constraints are seldom realistic.