HOME | DD
Ali-Radicali — Too big to Fail
Published: 2013-04-06 19:07:13 +0000 UTC; Views: 1586; Favourites: 20; Downloads: 1
Redirect to original
Description
Because preventing banks from participating in criminal endeavours would (supposedly) cause a financial collapse, and letting the banks continue to "self-regulate" would definitely do the same...10 (!) layer stencil, spraypaint.
Original design: [link]
Related content
Comments: 55
"Continue to 'self-regulate'"? Banking is the single most highly state-regulated industry in the world. That the State would not wish to see its child (Big Business) fail should not be surprising in the slightest.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
BS. Nuclear energy is a lot more state regulated. So is food safety. Or air pollution. The big difference is that a company putting rat poison in its products is probably going to get shut down.
Furthermore, the idea tht all countries are equal in terms of regulatory firmness is a laughable farce, the US and especially Great Britain have a completely deregulated financial anarchy going on (which is part of the reason why wall street and london are such important financial capitals FYI).
The notion that banks are some sort of nefarious pet project of states is likewise a joke: banks are a key institution of capitalism, it's no wonder that they've managed to grow their power to the point where governments have no choice but to bail them out. Any halfway decent "statist" state would've actually nationalised the banks that they saved with taxpayer money.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Haha None of those industries can even touch the degree of state banking regulation. It's not only more tightly regulated, it's also the one with the longest history of state regulation since the advent of the Westphalian state. If you think it exists in financial 'anarchy' then you have a lot to learn. Banks only have 'power' because of the state and its interventions in--and distortions of--the market.
And nowhere did I say that "all countries are equal in terms of regulatory firmness"; you said that. Neither did I claim that banks "are some sort of nefarious pet project of states". You didn't even read what I said. You just want to cram your backward ideology down peoples' throats. So I'm done here. Have fun with your false 'radicalism'.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So the fact that banking as a practice exists longer than nuclear weaponry is supposed to prove what exactly? To me all it proves is that figuring out how to turn money into more money is a lot easier than making nuclear missiles (and apparently the destructive effects of banking were already apparent to people centuries ago; good for them).
Banks provide a condition of existence for other capitalists, as such the welfare of an economy is directly tied to banks' ability to extend credit. To blame their current state of power on "the state" rather than an inherent conflict of interest within capitalism is myopic.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Like I said, you have a lot to learn. To unravel the Gordian knot of your twisted way of thinking about society would take more time than I have, so I won't bother.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
What a lazy, intellectually dishonest cop out. I wouldn't even WANT to debate these matters with someone so eager to rid himself of any burden of proof/reason. enjoy sticking your head in the sand while you tell everyone who disagrees with you how ignorant they are. Hope that works out for you.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ignoring the ignorant is the only way to go when you actually have a life; to call me intellectually dishonest because I won't engage in useless debate with someone who wouldn't understand a word I say on this ever-so illustrious forum is just silly.
Have a nice life.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm not calling you intellectually dishonest for not engaging in a debate, I'm calling you intellectually dishonest for not engaging in the debate whilst crowing victory. If you don't have an argument to give, don't go about calling other people ignorant or wrong. Also, cute how you turn this all into a little ad hom at the end, classy. Just goes to show how much you're clutching at straws at this point to avoid actually making an argument.
Enjoy your dunning-kruger effect, hope you don't choke on all that sand.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Still at this, buddy? How sad. What a life you must live.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
More ad hominem, cute. Look if you have nothing to say, here's a tip: don't say anything. If you're going to go around saying people are wrong and ignorant, you'd better be prepared to make an argument. If you can't, that's your failing, not that of the people you're lambasting.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I don't have time to waste laying out arguments you wouldn't understand. This is fun, though; I wonder how long you'll spew pseudo-intellectual pablum at someone that manifestly gives less than a fuck? I guess I'll find out soon. Keep going!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
For all your pretend intellectualism, you're the one making fallacy after fallacy. I wonder why you'd have to do that if you're so OBVIOUSLY right?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Am I? What else, buddy?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
There's nothing else. If you had anything substantive to say I would be refuting THAT, instead all I can do is point out the fact that you don't have a leg to stand on.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You wouldn't know, would you? Considering I haven't offered one...
Because you wouldn't understand it, as I said. And I have better things to do than engage in exchanges on economics with the economically illiterate. But you, by contrast, evidently have nothing better to do than continue to respond to someone offering nothing in the way of rebuttal.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It doesn't take much time to point out how hollow and intellectually vapid your entire collection of posts here is.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Vapid? You're really working hard on that thesaurus, aren't you? Good job, buddy!
But if anything is vapid here, it's your tired nonsense. Anyway, without intellectual content how could my posts be intellectually anything? I told you I wasn't going to waste any of my energy on your ignorance--I don't have the desire to plumb those depths.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
This is sad. You are a complete waste of time, space and energy.
If you don't want to defend your (lack of a) position, don't go around telling others they're wrong. It's really that simple. If you do go about telling others that they're wrong whilst being unwilling and/or unable to provide a rational justification, you might even be right(if only by sheer coincidence) but no one has any rational reason for accepting what you say because you cannot give one.
In other words, if you cannot rationally justify what you're saying (and clearly you can't judging by your previous posts) no one has any reason to give your opinions any more credence than a random guess by a random, uninformed person.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So I'm a waste of time and energy; yet here you remain?
Just because I didn't give a position to defend doesn't mean I can't; I just wouldn't offer it to someone as far-gone to the limits of economic ignorance as you. It'd be like discussing calculus with a toddler, or modern architecture with a Neanderthal.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Please continue to exhibit every fallacy in the book, it's an education in bad argumentation.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Argumentation can't be good or bad when it's nonexistent. Notice I haven't engaged in it since April 27.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Nonexistent argumentation is bad argumentation.
Even if you happen to be right, simply claiming so is not an argument nor is it a reasonable thing to do..... all of which you'd find out if you were not too cowardly to even defend your ideas/beliefs.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No, nonexistent argumentation is simply no argumentation. I'm aware of the fact that you have no reason to accept any of my premises, since I have only stated them, and have not defended them. If I wanted to debate another drone for a dead ideology that I can counter in my sleep, I would. But I've done it more times than I can count, and feel no inclination whatsoever to do it again. It has nothing to do with cowardice--just experience. Go ahead, though: keep responding with vacuous and laughable attempts at grasping intellect. This has been immensely entertaining.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You're a star. Continue to bask in your smug delusions of grandeur and illusory superiority, I'm done trying to get a grade A example of the dunning-kruger effect to put his money where his mouth is.
I'm sure you have tremendous insights into the inner workings of the world locked in your little head, but until you share all you're showing is an obnoxious loud mouth.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Dunning-Kruger Effect, Dunning-Kruger Effect, Dunning-Kruger Effect... You must have really liked that particular Wikipedia article when you found it, eh?
What a little gem you are. While clearly seeing that I care not a whit to converse with you on the topic that started this entire conversation, you nonetheless continue to try to debate me. I claim no 'superiority'--just better education. It could be yours, too, if only you'd bother to read something with substance and scholarship.
A reminder to our viewers:*Tune in next time to see what inane bullshit Ali-Radicali will say next!*
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes... because your repeated claims and assertions about me are totally worth reading. You're deluding yourself if you think any sane person would bother to read beyond the first three rounds of neanderthal chest thumping...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That may be the case--but again, I'm not the one trying to debate here. I just want to see how long you'll keep at this. You've been a real trooper so far! Sane people read my writing all the time; so sad that you can't count yourself among their number. You know, they may even have meds for your condition. Might want to look into that before your idiocy really starts to show.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm not interested in childish namecalling and imputations of insanity. As far as I'm concerned, the fact that you insist on this idiotic ad hominem tactic rather than actually making a point says everything one needs to know about your level of maturity and reason. The projection involved in constantly insisting that I must be perusing dictionaries and google to "sound smart" is especially telling.
Please go away until you have a point to make.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You know nothing of my maturity or rationality. And I already told you that conversation on any point salient to the initial discussion would be wasted time. You continue responding to me after I've said repeatedly that I have no interest in debating your de-civilizing philosophy or countering the oft-refuted points of your dead ideology.
Cute aside there near the end; it might look like projection if the truth of my assertion were not so utterly manifest in your writing. You'll get the hang of higher vocabulary, eventually.
I'll respond to you so long as you respond to me--this much I've made clear. You obviously wish to continue this for some reason, or you wouldn't keep replying.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I know all I need to know about your maturity and rationality from your previous responses. For all I know, sure, you might be eighty years old, but that is irrelevant since you've been acting like a child consistently throughout this debate.
I've given you ample opportunity to behave like an adult (read: make a point), yet you insist on childish namecalling, imputations of ignorance and other fallacious nonsense.
If you want the last word that desperately, go on, take it, it's yours: unless you somehow manage to make an argument worth responding to, I'm just going to do what I should have done 20 posts ago and ignore you for being the attention-hungry troll you are.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
The guy you're arguing with reminds me of the Reapers from Mass Effect, going all "I don't need to explain myself, you wouldn't understand."
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
You know all that you want to know, that much is certain. You know nothing of me beyond that. You knew from early on that I had no interest in debate, so it's pointless to even call... whatever this is... a debate. I need not impute ignorance to you, when you display it so proudly. This isn't about last words; just seeing how long you'll continue replying, as I made clear earlier. I crave no attention; who the fuck will be reading this other than you? Simply put, I find your desire to continue babbling fascinating, and if it takes two seconds out of my day to see how long you'll go on, then I've wasted no time and gotten a good laugh in exchange. So thanks!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
If they are too big to fail, buy them, break them up, and sell the parts. Problem solved.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No, not really. The problem is the fundamental conflict between productive labour, industrial capitalists and moneylending capitalists. Sure, cutting the banks down to size would reset the problemm, but capitalism is a system which exacerbates differences, so eventually the banks would return to their current, bloated state.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
I am of the opinion that the "Too big to fail" argument was just a sales pitch to get government money. As such I am arguing for a consequence for handing out government money. If you say you are such a vital organ to the economy that you have to be bailed out with taxpayer's money, then you are going to be broken up into smaller pieces as a consequence. It will make them think twice before asking for a bail out.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
But banks do provide a necessary function for modern-day capitalism. The ability to access large amounts of money at low interest rates is vital for industrial capitalists to be able to deal with unforeseen costs that would otherwise drive them out of business. Yes you could chop the banks down to size, but due to the inherent need for banks, they'd quickly return to their current state of being, just like they did over the course of the 20ieth century up until 2007-2008.
My argument is that you can try to improve a broken system all you want, it'll just regress back the minute you take your eyes off it. The solution is a new economic system, not tweaks within the broken system.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
A free market system would be much better than the Cartel system we have, but you would need to tax the large businesses more than the little ones.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Please, please, please, before you even continue, tell me what you think a free market is.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Agreed. Iceland has the better example for this. Did Iceland need bail-outs from other countries?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Icelandic banks massively ripped off a bunch of UK and Dutch investors and pension funds by refusing to pay their foreign cerditors back when their banks collapsed. Honestly, iceland isn't a great example either.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm not saying the banks themselves were a good example before or after their collapse. They were as bad as the other banks in Europe. The good example of Iceland was in allowing them to fail like any other business, instead of exhibiting dangerous too-big-to-fail preferential treatment for their banks, like other countries unduly have.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It's easy to let them fail if it's foreign money going up in smoke and not your own. The day before the last of the three banks collapsed, iceland passed a law saying only aicelandic savings would be guaranteed, foreign money wouldn't. It's basically the same thing that's happened to Cyprus and the russian money there. And while it may seem superficially like a good settlement, it ends up hurting the place (iceland, cyprus) because no one is ever going to trust them as bankers, no matter how high they raise the interest rates on savings and credit.
I'm not saying it's bad to let the banks collapse, but's it's a bit of a lose either way situation and the reason for that is because of the way production is organised, not becaus eof some petty banking rule here or there that needs tweaking.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It'll teach people who bank offshore and use tax havens a lesson or two, then!
Also, sorry if this turns out to be a double post. DA fail if it is.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The problem is, the rules, especially those regarding a corporation's fidutiary responsibility regarding shareholders, require companies to exhibit immoral -but not strictly speaking illegal- behavior: exploiting workers, shifting costs onto the government, committing risky and/or illegal acts, lobbying for subsidies and favourable (lack of) regulation, etc.
The way I see it, the rules of (global) society set the parameters by which societies operate, and the dysfunctionality of out financial system is largely a function of a grander problem with capitalism.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That too, hence the Occupy movement.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The problem with the occupy movement is that they never really identified themselves with a concrete policy. Considering their resources, and the efforts leveled against them by corporations, media and politicians to ignore or discredit them, they did a remarkable job at changing the dialogue from "makers and takers" into the 1% vs the 99%; that was quite an accomplishment in and of itself.
But unfortunately, the momentum petered out before an actual policy-driven organisation could develop, and as such they never really accomplished anything tangible themselves. Occupy was a small step in the right direction, but it's going to take similar efforts on a much larger scale to actually achieve some fundamental changes in society's organisation of production and distribution of wealth.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I know, that's why it takes brave steps and upside down, sideways, diagonal, outside the box and even inside the chimney (sorry, had to!) thinking in order to get anywhere. But the Occupy Movement was a result of this mess, and is one of many ways in which people can speak up.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
And speak up, they should. The US public is extremely complacent, even compared to other western countries. It seems the very idea of resisting corporate power has been made "unamerican".
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Well yeah, except when the government decides that having the banks fall is an unnacceptable outcome, and they'd rather backstop the banks' irresponsible behavior with taxpayer money.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
| Next =>