Comments on: G20 ends Anglo-Saxon era Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:57:19 +0000 hourly 1 By: Josh Thu, 09 Apr 2009 15:37:35 +0000 Sherry, there is nothing wrong with charity. But most of the countries where there is poverty, there is a corrupt government to deprive the people. Think India. Think Rwanda. These places don’t have a subsisting impoverished class because their nation is outright poor — it’s because every time the idiots at the UN elect to send food, the food is taken by the government to go where the government wants it… which is the government alone. Everyone else is left in the dust, and the government couldn’t care less. Therefore, it isn’t an issue of what the governments in our first-world nations can supply through generosity, but what our goverments can slowly encroach onto us as they raise the taxes like the temperature of a frying pan on which the frog sits. We’ll be okay with tiny increases year after year, until we give more than half of what we make to the government so they can play around with a few billion more dollars of money that isn’t theirs to begin with. This sort of thinking, letting the government do as it pleases, brought us into this mess.

By: Bryan Thu, 09 Apr 2009 00:52:03 +0000 April 2nd, 2009 9:50 pm GMT – Posted by Sherry

The only winners are IMF and World Bank. The losers? Middle class in all participating countries! Generations to come will have to pay IMF and World Bank and Central banks for the money they generously lend us now.

I have to say that’s a very American statement. Not bashing Americans, I am one…

But to say the IMF and World Bank won while the middle class of every nation loses, think about this little inconvenient factoid:

These places hardly have a middle class. They are worried about how they’re going to provide even the simplest food items to their families. And they don’t have any luxuries. I mean if we REALLY need to we can cough up SOMETHING at the pawn shop to get to the next paycheck… and even if you’re absolutely homeless… you’re not absolutely hopeless. There are soup kitchens and shelters and ways (although difficult) to get out of poverty.

Not so in the developing countries that IMF and World Bank and dishing out money to. These people are worried about survival and your worried in a fraction of a percent to a few percent tax hike over the next few decades?

Please. There are serious problems in this world and this is a SMALL step towards fixing them. You don’t want to sacrifice a little to ensure that others have access to food and clean water? Well great, but I am proud to say that I live in a democracy and MOST of the people here (and thankfully now, our government) think it’s important to be a good global citizen.

Not to be combative.

/end rant

By: Glen Durrant Wed, 08 Apr 2009 23:26:11 +0000 The Third Way, by Giddens huh?! The guy who wrote it was a good friend of Blairs. It’s the intellectual groundwork for the insideous form of socialist economics we see emerging today.

Here’s how it works…incase you haven’t graced it’s pages.

A govt gets the voters to pay for public works with labor/taxes, then at its highest value sells it off privately to those who can afford it. Then the rich tap the resource and make their money on the essential services it provides. Then when they decide to, or screw it up royally, they pull all the money, then re-nationalises the same asset again. This way we, the voters, pay for the same asset two, perhaps three times. And the very rich make money inbetween, buying then selling at optimal times with the aid of the govt, who they own/are.

Thus resources are generated by our taxes/labor, sold for less than they are worth to the very rich, then bought back by us when they are worthless again, all of which we,our children, our grand-children etc pay for again and again, whilst all the money generated by the process goes overseas to develop less costly resources, by which the whole dirty process can be played again, theoretically until global wages and resources are equalized/exhausted.

Where else can an investment yield the highest dividend? IT’s not going to be in a western country. The rich are global. The poor are local. We are cattle. Marx was right.

By: sweeny Sat, 04 Apr 2009 23:39:49 +0000 indeed it would be a positive step forward if President Hu Jintao & the ’emerging economic colossus’ were ceded a little shift in the dynamics of power.

China, as ancient history demonstrates, is definitely in the mix for the long haul. if one is still a little shakey in the light of the Cold War era, go back further to the history of the ancients and see the glory of their empire and Magnaminous culture and custom. we could all learn from the ancient charms and philosophies of a noble race of people.

By: B.Free Fri, 03 Apr 2009 19:53:04 +0000 Anubis, your words are falling on way to many deaf ears. To few actually write (e-mail) our Congressmen or the White House. To many think the news is what they watch before the weather and bed.

I doubt Capitalism will die soon. I have noticed that greed really does not care which economic system is currently active. Personally I like capitalism when the leash is strong and tight. Monopolies and Oligopolies (aka TBTF’s) need to be busted up so we maintain a strong free market with many buyers and many sellers, all in competition. I have no problem rewarding entrepreneurship with profit. I do have a problem with CEO and upper Corporate managers of publicly traded enterprises gouging the stockholders with outrageous compensation packages. Again, if we had a real free market that could not happen. Oil is where it is because we as a people didn’t demand better cars. The goals the government put on the automakers was a joke. We allowed our Congress to be run by whoever has the most money to through around. We allowed our government under the last administration to be manipulated by the military industrial complex and this administration does not seem to be doing well in that category either.

Too much wealth in the hands of unscrupulous individuals around the world is driving international and national policy. I regrettably doubt changing from the “unfettered, Anglo-Saxon model of capitalism” will change much. These unscrupulous individuals will continue to manipulate policy for profit without regard to what the future consequences will be or how many lives it will cost.

By: Anubis Fri, 03 Apr 2009 14:50:58 +0000 There will always be unpaid debts. To date the U.S. and it’s government is the largest debtor nation in history. The premier of China has publicly stated his country’s concerns about the United States ability to repay it’s Treasury obligations.

The rise of totalitarianism is not caused by regulated or unregulated market systems. It is the fruit of usurpation of power into one branch of government and a citizenry’s unwillingness to stop it.

Capitalism will probably not survive as we know it very much longer. Humanity needs solar and wind energy production. Alternatives to fossil fuels are another essential group of needs. TB and other viral diseases are poised to become the next pandemic. The free market response to these pressing issues has always been either anemic or nonexistent.

The state does not confer rights upon the people. People are endowed with “Certain Inalienable Rights”. The people consent to be governed. According to Locke the people can also consent not to be governed or replace the system of governance with something new of their choosing. The cost however is high, the “blood of patriots and tyrants”.

I urge all to read the U.S. Constitution and George Washington’s farewell address to the union. He warned even then the Constitution was being ignored. Alan is right. Our “founding” fathers built a “foundation” of institutions and principals, perhaps lofty ideals with which to build a society. For too long as nation we have shirked our civic duties to oversee our elected officials. The reasons why don’t matter. As a result all that remains now is a shell filled with rot and decay.

If one truly believes we allow our leaders to ascend to power, then collectively we should all be responsible for the actions of our government and the wealthy. If we as a People accept this position then it is up to all of us to make it right. This is how government “Of the People, by the People, for the People is supposed to work.

By: Aron Fri, 03 Apr 2009 07:28:29 +0000 I’m just trying to figure out where people ever got the idea there has been an unfettered market. Everywhere you turn there is legislation, bureaucracy and taxes. The Community Reinvestment Act was government intervention that caused the crash. Without that the market had decided credit checks via credit agencies should be used to check a borrower’s ability to pay back loans. We’ve never had free universal trade. If we did then poorer nations would be able to find opportunities and there certainly wouldn’t be nations living under sanctions. So now we’re to accept more government regulation as a cure to already too much regulation because some elements of the media say we have “unfettered” capitalism. When journalists convince readers that freedom is no good for them then it follows that one day they’ll convince readers that four plus four equals five.

By: Adam Fri, 03 Apr 2009 06:39:09 +0000 I have to agree with the other posters that there never has been ‘unfettered’ capitalism in “Anglo-Saxon” countries. There was a mis-assessment of risk by financial institutions that brought about a global crisis of admittedly large, but not unnaturally large, proportions. That failure has nothing to do with the failure of regulation – the would-be regulators failed to spot what was happening too, just as they will next time. Free market capitalism will survive because when it comes down to it, it is not a model that has been imposed, it is the most successful way we live and do business as human beings. Those who live in that way, no matter where they are in the world and at what time, will ultimately do better than those who do not – even if there are a few more bumps on the way than in a stagnant and over-regulated system, the upside will be bigger too.

By: Tim Bowyer Fri, 03 Apr 2009 05:52:18 +0000 [Today’s crisis is the result of an overextended state] –

I agree, it’s not a failure of Anglo-Saxon capitalism but of the Anglo-Saxon version of democracy, which has morphed into a bullying, arrogant, war-mongering and unrepresentative form of government such as those run by George Bush, Tony Blair and John Howard – the moral bankrupcy of these governments has now, all too predictably, led to their financial bankrupcy. But this, of course, was not addressed at the G20 pollie-fest.

By: Sherry Fri, 03 Apr 2009 02:50:00 +0000 The only winners are IMF and World Bank. The losers? Middle class in all participating countries! Generations to come will have to pay IMF and World Bank and Central banks for the money they generously lend us now.