Capitalists (Little Upsilon)

If you're a capitalist just post a comment here on this page.

Pfffft hahahahaha I am not a capitalist...I am just laughing at how you are the only person who posted...besides me just now.

I am a Capitalist.

I AM A CAPITALIST ;)

Now the world is starting to see who capitalists really are 'Blood Sucking Leaches' people will soon unravel this web of deceit that these capitalists have been spinning us. And they will dethrone this monetary system disguised as democracy called capitalism that these Blood Suckers have been imposing on us through the manipulation of our weakest instincts: desire and fear.

This capitalistic way of life, void from responsibility, honour and morals due to the fact that its just a monetary system and not a way of life, will be soon put into its rightful place.

Capitalism will work together with Communism (community) socialism (society) and religion (morality) creating the situation where these Blood Suckers will become out casts and classed as social deviants.

Then this monetary system called capitalism will only be able to influence the economics of life when it is clear that it will have no negative effect on our societies social, community and moral guidance.

And what will happen to the capitalist?

They are gonna have to take a long hard look at themselves and hope that what they see isn't too disturbing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3-BcjmUXMs

;)

Weird. Wasn't it Capitalists who made Western Society?

I have never known a capitalist to be a Nationality :s

lol :P it is to some people

Nix, I was once taught an important rule: Don't trust a man who has no interest in money. Nonsense, you might be thinking. Not at all. Read your own post, such a man who has no interest in money wants control. He wants to dictate the way others live their lives. He wants to class those who refuse to conform as deviants. Maybe take a good long look at yourself.

Capitalism isn't a monetary system at all. (Maybe you meant something else?) It's an ideology (better than a nationality) that promotes economic and political freedom. In the simplest terms, you have no right to your fellow man's life, liberty or property. There is little deceit in the ideology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

Monetary/economic. Whats the difference?

And now we have this economic system dictating to democracy. Two european leaders have been removed by the market rulers (capitalists) already as elections take too long. Something very wrong in that.

They are calling it 'the european autumn' spin off from the 'the arab spring'. But instead of the native people and outside influences changing governments its the Capitalists (right wingers).

I'm interested in what money I need to survive. Anything wrong with that?

I never said there was anything wrong with being interested in money. There isn't. I was referencing the fact that you're clearly promoting an authoritarian government.

While I don't know any details, I have strong doubts that "two European leaders have been removed by the market rulers." I wouldn't be surprised if it was merely containing about politicians you don't like.

complaining*

Ok soldier now you have had some time to catch up with whats happening what say you now?

You do know that Italy's new leader is a unelected economist. And that out of all the members of the new parliament there is not one politician. How can you have a parliament without a politician?
How can you have democracy without a voice from the people?

Now thats a 'authoritarian government'

Would you not say soldier?

Anything to stay in control

I'm not a political junkie. I have no idea how Italy's government works. Is the leader you're referencing even an elected position? Or was he appointed under the Italian constitutional rules? The real question here hinges on how Italy's government works, and not only do I feel disinclined to research the new Italian leader, but I also feel disinclined to research the Italian constitution. In any case, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. If you'd like to link evidence that the new Italian leader was illegally appointed, feel free to do so. I will read, but not research.

As for the lack of politicians, I don't believe that's a bad thing. No need to have career politicians in elected positions. This is definitely not a requirement of democratic government. This is also not an authoritarian government by any stretch of the imagination.

Unless, of course, the Italian government isn't a democracy, and you're making an unwarranted comparison to make me look a fool. If Italy doesn't have a democratic government, this is proof of nothing other than Italy doesn't have a democratic government.

Furthermore, "democracy" isn't necessarily indicative of a free society. Case in point, several US states have bans on gay marriages passed by a democratic majority. Whether or not these are struck down in court is a question of constitutional protections of freedom. In my opinion, a free society is more important than a democratic one. It just so happens that a democratic government is the best method of ensuring a free society, but my point is that democracy is not my ideal. A strong constitution that protects political and economic freedom is... this renders questions of social justice out of the realm of government. A free society doesn't enforce any morality on its people; it simply protects the rights of its citizens from infringement. The authoritarianism that you're promoting is encased in these words: "Capitalism will work together with Communism (community) socialism (society) and religion (morality) creating the situation where these Blood Suckers will become out casts and classed as social deviants."

No two ways about it. This type of thinking is a threat to a pro-individualism and pro-capitalism mindset such as mine. I'm not here to tell anyone how to live their lives. The only type of government I support is one that protects the negative rights of citizens.

So, Italy isn't relevant to Capitalism really. While in my view economic freedom is a prerequisite of political freedom, I understand that economic freedom can exist without political freedom. The importance of capitalism is that I don't think political freedom without economic freedom can exist for long: Capitalism must be present for a free society to exist, but Capitalism does not necessarily indicate a free society (see China).

Another thing: for a variety of reasons, I don't support the Occupy X movement. From my point of view, they're thugs and looters... in both the literal and figurative senses.

The issue with Italy's new government as well as Greece's is that they have essentially been imposed by the European Union in an effort to put up a firewall between their dire financial positions and the rest of the Euro.

The reason they have had to do this, is partly because of the irresponsible lending of the banking sector (although Greece's shoddy income tax system had a large part to play).

The UK's austerity budget and those of the US and other European countries have also been caused indirectly by irresponsible lending by the banks.

This is going to take a bit of explaining, but stick with me.

Let's look back at how we got in our current mess. We partially deregulated the banking sector allowing banks to use their profitable retail businesses to act as collateral for riskier investment banking (repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act started this off in the US). Complicated and poorly understood asset-backed securities further separated the banks from the risks associated with lending by allowing one bank to issue subprime mortgages, package them up in triple-A-rated Collateralised Debt Obligations and sell the risk on to investors. The thought was that even if a few mortgages in the CDO went bad, the CDO itself would still retain the majority of its worth and still be tradeable. Better still, another financial invention, the Credit Default Swap (CDS) allowed investors to insure their investments in CDOs against losses caused by default of a few mortgages in their CDOs.

Lovely, we had a free and economically-liberal banking system that has turned otherwise risky assets into a low-risk investment product that could even insure against the low-risk of defaults in the product.

The whole point of a free and liberal, capitalist economic policy is that if a business goes bad, it MUST be able to fail (if it can't, then you have nothing more than a subsidised business that is a proxy for the state - see the part-nationalised banks of the UK and US - it's no longer a full market economy).

When it turned out that the banks and building societies had perhaps been a bit too liberal in dishing out mortgages in the subprime market, their lovely CDOs went into large-scale default. The insurers hadn't priced such a large scale of default into their insurance policies so when their CDSs were triggered by big defaults they couldn't or wouldn't pay out (at least not enough to cover the banks' losses).

Given that banks net worth is the sum total of their assets minus their liabilities (as is the same with all businesses), we now have a major problem on our hands. Much of the banks' assets were tied up in these lovely CDOs some of which were now essentially worthless. This meant that many banks were potentially bankrupt (assets worth less than liabilities) and with the banks also having loans to each other on their books, nobody was sure who was able to repay their loans and who couldn't.

At this point, a free market would allow the banks to fail as unprofitable and worthless husks. Unfortunately, given their pivotal role in EVERYTHING and the fact that it would mean many citizens losing their life savings and pensions and suffering economic hardship for decades as the economy recovered, Government stepped in and took over some/most of the troubled assets that were causing the problem.

This freed up the banks to lend to each other again as they now knew whose assets were valuable, and who was still essentially bankrupt (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Northern Rock, Royal Bank of Scotland, etc.). Lovely, everything can get back to normal.

Unfortunately, banks also held large amounts of sovereign debt of the governments who had bailed out their banks. The 'troubled assets' that had stopped banks lending to each other, were now in the hands of sovereign governments who were liable for paying it off (hence the rather large national debt of the US and European countries). Unfortunately, given the economic problems that had resulted from the banking crisis, some countries were potentially worthless, and with the countries also having loans to each other on their books, nobody was sure who was able to repay their loans and who couldn't.

I'm sure I've typed that sentence somewhere before?!? To keep both countries and banks afloat, the finances of the PIIGS (and to a lesser extent, the US, UK and France) needed to be brought back into 'profit' meaning massive cuts and/or large tax rises. Both of these are deeply unpopular across Europe and no political party would win an election outright by honestly proposing them. The situation of the market dictates that these countries MUST address their financial problems and therefore what has happened in Greece and Italy is that caretaker governments have been established without the voice of the people being heard with the express purpose of passing the stringent budgets necessary to meet the demands of the free market.

I'll say that again in case you missed it, the current governments of Greece and Italy were established to meet the demands of the free market to prevent them and the banks from going bankrupt.

The US, UK and France have so far escaped this ignominy, but only by passing stringent budgets sooner and because their finances were in slightly better shape to begin with. If things get any worse (Greece may yet crash out of the Euro, possibly causing it to collapse), we won't be able to avoid a similar fate to that of Greece and Italy.

I am weakly pro-market, but nowhere near the level of the average American. Give me a strongly regulated market that avoids deep recessions in the long term at the cost of excessive profits in the short term, any day!

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

the current governments of Greece and Italy were established to meet the demands of the free market to prevent them and the banks from going bankrupt.<!-/Quote-!>

Why not just "the current governments of Greece and Italy were established to prevent them and the banks from going bankrupt." Why blame the free market? A free market would let stuff go bankrupt, and let the chips fall where they may. This seems to be in direct contradiction to how free markets operate.

Whoops! Yep, that is a bit of a contradiction. I suppose I should have said something like '...were established to meet the demands of rich business owners who didn't want to lose their fortunes.'

Otherwise, I stand by my post. Those with a vested interest in the Free Market might be its biggest proponents until their investments start to look vulnerable. Suddenly, demand for intervention grows and taxpayers end up picking up the bill.

EDIT: The post is mostly me ranting (not angrily though, I save that for communists, haha) so feel free to ignore unless you have time to waste.

Sorry, I haven't checked the forums in a while. I'm a supporter of having a free market whether it is a bear or bull market. I think it would be safe for you to assume that I'd oppose intervention no matter the climate.

In either case, I should mention that not all "deregulation" is consistent with a free market ideology. In theory, any regulation should be eliminated according to a pro-free-market ideology, but the problem with "deregulation" as spoken by politicians is that some of it is legitimate laws designed to punish those who commit fraud. Note that determining in all cases which is which would require a bit more knowledge than I possess. I'd leave it to economists and politicians to sort out. My main point is that economic liberalism doesn't imply everything that goes with the standard political definition of deregulation. However, it would take larger shift of general politics to the right before we would see the kind of differentiation required for intelligent policies in the political arena... a shift unlikely to happen in my lifetime. Of course, I must once again plead ignorance of whether this kind of scrutiny would have outlawed any particular component of financial "magic" that led to the recession. I'm happy enough voting for people who will hopefully promote a free market without allowing fraudulent actions. On the other hand, this should not be mistaken for saying that regulations designed to prevent market failure should be enacted, just in case you were thinking I was deviating from an economically liberal position - the main idea is that there needs to someone defrauded. If you need examples, whatever fancy euphemism or scheme for publishing false or misleading financial records would not be allowed. Anti-monopolization laws would be removed. From what I understand of insider trading, it would be entirely legal. Suffice to say that I understand my position is sufficiently complex in practice, but this is justified in that economies and governments are complex subjects. As far as I'm concerned, simple and common sense solutions are just more words for oversimplifying the issues (taking a shot at some politicians I've seen).

I guess my second point is that I'm mostly willing to leave the actual decision-making to people more qualified to make the decisions, but who also support free markets (you can guess my support does not primarily come from economic efficiency or economic dynamism arguments, but more from the belief stated previously, which if we were arguing civil liberties or the role of government might make more sense). Someone sharing my general ideals but who is more informed might come up with different policies in practice than I would. It should say something that I've only voted in 1/3 of elections I've been eligible to. It doesn't help that the democrats are socialists and fascists and the republicans are corporatists and fundamentalists, but these are my opinions. Not all of them are that bad.

Of course, I will not deny that banks still could have failed were the policies more carefully scrutinized to support the free market. Bank failures hurt many people, but the level of scrutinization aside, I think many more people are being hurt by bailing out those banks that failed. But this is speculation. The only way to know for sure whether it would have been better to let the banks fail is to go back into the past and let them fail. Anyway, it is important to mention that in a recession, it is not all sectors of the economy that are doing poorly. Not every bank was going to fail. The ones that didn't would have been in prime position to expand. It is also important to mention that you don't have taxpayers footing the bill for bailouts in a free market since, of course, there would be no bailouts.

On the other hand, I hope it isn't just me being misinformed, but I think that the EU makes the situation a little more complicated over there. As much as I've been able to tell, it looks like the EU has a large role in the politics of member nations and seems to be mostly responsible for installing the caretaker governments. In other words, I would say that this situation seems more like the EU exercising its political muscle than the free market exercising its economic muscle. It's a little pointless to speculate, but I doubt the governments of Italy and Greece would be in much financial trouble (ignoring the overall economic and popular implications for these governments, which would be still be troublesome) if they had followed a free market ideology. Further, I doubt that caretaker governments would have been installed if these nations were not EU members.

I guess I'll use the arguments that pointing out the shortcomings of fair weather supporters of free markets isn't exactly indicting free markets and that the installation of the new governments seems to have more to do with the EU intervention in member nations and national intervention in those economies than free markets, making it not an indictment of free markets. The point that free markets fail sometimes is worth consideration. I just happen to think that maintaining economic liberties (this way of phrasing it isn't primarily rhetorical, I mean it in exactly and only this sense) is more important than avoiding recessions. On the other hand, I think it worth mentioning that given my current understanding of them, I don't see having central banks as inconsistent with maintaining economic freedom and free markets, and these can help ease recession without compromising either.

My last point, however, is that my earlier point was that nix's position did imply the explicit denial of economic liberties for less excusable reasons than yourself. It did seem to me that he was promoting the denial of economic freedom for the sake of promoting a state-backed morality. I don't see your position as entirely unreasonable. I can understand where you're coming from, but I don't agree. I value freedom more than you do. I don't mean to imply that you don't value freedom, just that when push comes to shove it is probably not as important as security to you... and this is what I disagree with. I made much of my ignorance on the specifics regarding the recession, and it should be clear that my stance is ideological in nature and unlikely to be altered from arguments taking a strong stance on economic equality or economic security over economic freedom. The same is true for political freedom, but this is generally less debated since not too many people openly promote political security over political freedom and political freedom is directly related to political equality (although it is theoretically possible for everyone to be equally oppressed). Whether you agree or disagree, my support of free markets stems from a strong support of economic freedom, and unless something called "economic freedom" can be demonstrated to actually not be economic freedom, my position is unlikely to change. I say this to stem any confusion over what it is I am supporting. It is not economic growth. It is not corporate profits. It is not a blanket support of every action of a pro-business politician, a corporation, a businessman, a union, etc.

Regarding the EU now the EURO. The Euro was created in another attempt by the Germans to rule Europe. They failed in their bid through military means only 70 years ago remember and now they are attempting it through financial means. It's designed to create political change through financial dictatorship.

As for Freedom........To have freedom comes responsibility and man has shown incapable of being responsible when faced with power and wealth . So to ensure the responsibility of having freedom is being undertaken you need a independent governing body. But to have a governing body means you are no longer free.

The free market is there to create wealth power and profit for those who can put themselves in the position to dictate it.
The problem now is, these free market leaders(owners) are now dictating to and in some cases owning governments. This will end up with fiscal consolidation of the world and the rise of the new world order as the dominating power on this planet. Meaning the end of politics and change from the streets. Unless of course they want a riot to distract the people from their concerns.

The biggest enemy now to our freedom is the free market. At least with politics we knew where are leaders were so we could revolt.

I'm sure you're overreacting regarding the Germans. To an extent, it makes sense as a defensive measure. If other countries using the Euro as currency fail, then Germany's currency fails. They don't really want that so they do what they must to prevent their own economy from collapsing. If anything, they're probably regretting joining the EU and feeling like they must bailout the failing countries in order to protect their own currency and economy.

In either case, my argument is that it is not free market leaders who are dictating and owning governments. The situation in the EU was my previous example in that it was the considerations of national governments to dictate policies regarding other national governments that shared their currency. If anything, recent events will likely make other national governments wary of linking their currency in any way resembling that of the Euro.

Regardless, any concessions that a government makes to any industry like tax breaks, subsidies, etc. to "encourage job growth," "prevent market failure," or whatever reason represent a direct challenge to the free market. the whole point is to separate the economy from the hands of government, much like the separation of church from state... both of these come from the same classical liberal ideology. I wouldn't conflate owners with free marketers.

Of course, I think you are greatly misapprehending the reality of economic power. Economic power is severely limited in its uses for an actually free market state precisely because the government doesn't have the authority to intervene in the market. This means that taxpayers will not be required to support any business or organization because the state does not have this authority. Corruption is the only thing to be concerned about, as with all systems, and even then, there is less to be gained because any bending of the rules will be fairly apparent and clearly unconstitutional because no favoring of any corporation can be legally justified. This means that any business will have its power limited to that power which is represented by the means of production. This is the difference between dynamic and hegemonic power. Dynamic power, the power to build, create, produce, or sell, cannot control anything unless it is combined with hegemonic power, the power to dictate, force, make rules, and enforce laws. Basically, dynamic power cannot punish any action, it can only reward or not reward actions. Hegemonic power, the power of governments, can only punish or not punish actions. I'm not saying that hegemonic power is evil or anything like that. What I am saying is that economic and political power are completely different and that economic power does not equate to political power in the sense you are implying. In short, I'm accusing you of exercising a linguistic trick.

As for freedom, I don't think you can explain your way out of being pro-dictatorship, but I've got much anger that you probably can't see in this post. At one point you say, man is incapable of the responsibility required for freedom. Then you say the free market is the enemy of freedom. I would contend that the kind of thinking in the first statement is the greatest enemy of freedom. Either way, the fact is that man is free to the extent that he can do whatever he damn well pleases, whether the state allows him to do so or not. He can choose to comply or not comply. He can choose to accept or not accept. Call this personal freedom to differentiate it from political freedom. The question is whether or not controls are justified. I would contend that controls are justified only to the extent that they prevent lying, cheating, stealing, and killing... to the extent they infringe on each of our own abilities to acquire and exercise dynamic power. Legitimate businessmen are people who have merely acquired great dynamic power. they still cannot force you to buy their products. If you disagree, organize a boycott. If you think people need jobs, fund a charity. If you think a business is cheating its customers, start your own and run it ethically. We don't need government for this. Take some responsibility for your own damn community and stop trying to delegate that power to government and force your decisions on others.

I would also like to point out that I'm not arguing that you don't need an independent governing body. That would be silly. If you accurately understand the root of government power, it is easier to see that a "governing body" exists in any situation. The root is political power, hegemonic power, the power of the gun. Whoever has the guns, has the power. However, this does not mean that they will necessarily exercise that power in a justified manner. Oppression is not the result of failure to listen to the voice of the people. If this were true, gay marriage is oppression.

You seem to think that political and economical power can be seperated. Its no where near that simple. Dynamic power as you label it can and is used to force the population to 'spend' its resources where business wants. This is mainly in the form of taxes which are taken and used by the financial arm of the government, the treasury, and allocated as they see fit. Unfortuneately this does not often concur with where the tax payer would have the resources allocated. And many of the choices are influenced by lobbies and decided behind doors between dynamic power and hegemonic power.
And the motivation? nothing to do with oppression but good old fashioned greed, human desire to be more comfortable than his neighbour.

I like your arguements soldier but they do remind me of the debating society at my college when we all wore rose tinted glasses.

Soldier....Did you know that the Illuminati (New World Order some say) was started in GERMANY by a JEW in 1776 on the 1st of May (MAYDAY)?

@Soldier 'I should mention that not all "deregulation" is consistent with a free market ideology.[...] some of it is legitimate laws designed to punish those who commit fraud[...] this should not be mistaken for saying that regulations designed to prevent market failure should be enacted'

Generally, I agree. Regulations and laws like the Glass-Steagall Act in the US and similar pre-2000 financial legislation in the UK were not designed to combat fraud. Their purpose was to separate risky investment banking from being funded by the large deposits in retail banks - in other words, this regulation was intended to reduce the likelihood of market bubbles forming by limiting the amount of cash available to investment banks.

It basically enshrined in law the principle that you shouldn't lend MORE than you can afford to lose.

De-regulating banking to allow the investment arm of retail banks access to retail deposits has been cited as a significant contributing factor to the current crisis.

Similarly, the UK had regulations in place in the 19th Century to regulate the construction of new railways. Ideally, this should have ensured that the network grew sensibly, allowing for competition between major cities without too much redundancy. Unfortunately, lobbying by investors led to politicians granting permission for lines that really shouldn't have been built causing an asset bubble and eventually a stock market crash. (Elements of fraud contributed to this, but the prime cause was failure by the government to enforce its own regulations.)

"Regulation" can go beyond punishing fraud with the aim of reducing the chances of dangerous asset bubbles developing. Yet, all too often, lobbyists for certain industries push too hard for deregulation and (economically) liberal governments foolishly oblige.

This is where I get concerned by your statement that, 'I'm mostly willing to leave the actual decision-making to people more qualified to make the decisions, but who also support free markets'. Those who 'support free markets' are all too often blinded by their support and end up making very poor decisions.

'I just happen to think that maintaining economic liberties [...] is more important than avoiding recessions.'

Here, I disagree with you. And my weak socialism starts to shine through. Recessions cause hardship. Disproportionately so to lower socio-economic groups. Either, you need a robust social welfare program that rewards people for getting back into work, but ensures that they can continue to subsist and support their families through the hard times (let me know if you can find a successful one of these!), or you need robust regulation to prevent serious recessions, preferably a combination of the two.

'it looks like the EU has a large role in the politics of member nations and seems to be mostly responsible for installing the caretaker governments. In other words, I would say that this situation seems more like the EU exercising its political muscle than the free market exercising its economic muscle.'

Yes and no. The EU has no role in the internal politics of member nations beyond the powers it has been granted by those governments. Think of it like the States of the Union in America - they pool a lot of their power in a central government (and President). The EU is a few steps short of this. Sovereignty remains with the member states, but some issues (fishing, border control, common market) are pooled.

The EU didn't 'impose' the caretaker governments as such. It offered a bailout to those countries that needed one with strings attached (much as a bank lends money, but demands collateral). The only way these countries could pass the austerity packages demanded by the EU was to form temporary (usually coalition) governments with a slim majority just long enough to pass the bill. The main reason these countries needed a bailout was the free market exercising its economic muscle (demanding higher interest rates on sovereign debt from countries that had bailed out banks that had lent irresponsibly). EXCEPTION: Greece: Fraud and tax dodging play a huge part here and the EU was right to exercise its political muscle.

'It's a little pointless to speculate, but I doubt the governments of Italy and Greece would be in much financial trouble[...] if they had followed a free market ideology'
Greece: See exception above. Italy has long been a basket-case and I am willing to grant that if they had followed a more free-market ideology, they probably would be a lot better off. This has more to do with Italy having had a string incompetent governments for decades, than any support I might have for the free market.

@nix001 'Regarding the EU now the EURO. The Euro was created in another attempt by the Germans to rule Europe. They failed in their bid through military means only 70 years ago remember and now they are attempting it through financial means. It's designed to create political change through financial dictatorship.'
The euro was meant to be the logical extension of the common market. The European Union as an entity was conceived as a way to ensure Germany would never seek to control Europe through military means again. In that sense it has succeeded (so far). Frankly, if financial dictatorship under German control would lead to a European economy with the unemployment, productivity, growth and stability of Germany, then I say, 'BRING IT ON!'

More seriously, if the Euro fails, then the German economy falters. Given that they are the largest economy in Europe, and the only one truly capable of rescuing the Euro, then I see no problem in them making certain demands, at least in the short term. This does not mean I agree with everything they put forward, but I'm certainly not going to dismiss it as some sort of bid to control Europe through finance.

@Soldier 'the whole point is to separate the economy from the hands of government'
Personally, I would prefer separation of economy from economists, but each to his own.

'taxpayers will not be required to support any business or organization because the state does not have this authority'
What about the risk of utilities shutting down? Imagine London or New York where the tube/metro shut down because the maintenance company went bankrupt (as happened with Tube Lines a few years ago in London). What happens when a privately-owned nuclear power plant closes and it turns out that the company hasn't put enough aside for the clean-up operation (despite meeting its regulatory requirements, because initial estimates of the cost turned out to be too low)? There are certain industries that benefit from an implicit guarantee from the State that they will never be allowed to properly and utterly fail. A totally free market is not possible in all areas.

It's these companies and industries (and banks that are too big to fail) that distort all efforts to create a free market. Better to accept its limitations and work for a middle ground that allows entrepreneurs to make a reasonable amount of money, but with adequate safeguards, regulation, and welfare to ensure that WHEN the economy goes tits up (might be British English - means 'goes really bad'), the damaging effects are limited.

@nix001 'Did you know that the Illuminati (New World Order some say) was started in GERMANY by a JEW in 1776 on the 1st of May?'
The Illuminuti (whoops, typo)/New World Order are little more than a conspiracy theory. There are organisations that can claim to be 'heirs' to the name, but they are of little concern. Why bother bringing them up? It just makes me think your opinions are clouded by the mad ravings of conspiracy theorists.

Yeah sure, blame the Jews. Fucking Nazi. If you haven't noticed, no one gives a crap about the Illuminati. They're a thing of the past. A conspiracy theory.