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, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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?
