The term, surely, is irrelevant? It's just a word and words can have meaning ascribed to them by context. They're not absolute. More to the point, since neither Chomsky, Friedman or Hayek's support is critical to any definition of the word, who cares what they could or couldn't agree with? The Austrian/Chicago School of Economic thought is in any case now largely discredited.

I see few misunderstanding in Nick's post, so I'd like to know where you think they are. Always the last refuge of a scoundrel to criticise someone, but to fail to point out the specific errors you're accusing them of making. Is Nick wrong only because you said so? This renders your post little more than fluffy vitriol.

History, upon even a cursory examination, supports Nick's contention that corporations first appeared as organisations in the late 19th century to oversee large scale public projects. If governments can be said not have worked together OPENLY to ensure wealth transference upwards, they have certainly done so implicitly. How else do you account for the current, unbalanced, society we live in...the product of successive governments? Do you think working people are willingly disenfranchising themselves?

Easy credit became the norm because it was an easy way for banks to make (more) money. In fact, there came a point when it was the only way. Once you have no more rich people to lend to, you cash in on the poor ones at prohibitive interest rates. It's the only option. The trouble is that the risk managers got their sums wrong about what the poor borrowers could afford. (The fact that these people became indebted and thus trapped was of neither concern nor interest to anyone in the structured products community of the Financial Services industry. At least until the excrement hit the ventilation extractor.)

Deregulation of markets really amounted to little more than letting the poachers run the game estate. Or to use another metaphor, do you expect good behaviour if you give the lunatics the keys to the asylum? What do you think an institution that is designed to generate profit is going to do when it is deregulated. Take sensible risks? Settle for marginal returns?

The real problem in all this is Stalin. And no, I'm not joking. History always holds the real answers (another point implicitly made by Nick's post). The discrediting of communism (rightly -- but with it -- and wrongly -- went the credibility of more or less every colour of left wing ideology) delivered two decades of unfettered right-wing dominance that delivered a world hallmarked, ultimately, by a divided society and economic collapse. That these regimes still have apologists beggars belief. The rebirth of Keynesian perspectives attests somewhat to this.

You appear to be long on rhetoric and very short on detail.

Edited by sydtheeagle (12 Nov 2014 6.03pm)

What makes a mockery of the whole financial fiasco is the trillions that was used to bail out the financial sector, yet the neoliberal press help the government spread the lie that we are suffering austerity because of the fault of the poor and immigration. UKIP are no different.

So, what is your take on the video evidence? Is it Nige saying those words or not? And, if you believe it it is, will you still be marketing his more recent NHS speak as something that he truly believes in?

You may decide to continue to do so but how will you know that his latter thoughts truly usurp the video-based ones?

The flip-flopping chatterbox is snookering his own supporters. Or, he would be if they weren't so damned well in love with him.

The term, surely, is irrelevant? It's just a word and words can have meaning ascribed to them by context. They're not absolute. More to the point, since neither Chomsky, Friedman or Hayek's support is critical to any definition of the word, who cares what they could or couldn't agree with? The Austrian/Chicago School of Economic thought is in any case now largely discredited.

I see few misunderstanding in Nick's post, so I'd like to know where you think they are. Always the last refuge of a scoundrel to criticise someone, but to fail to point out the specific errors you're accusing them of making. Is Nick wrong only because you said so? This renders your post little more than fluffy vitriol.

History, upon even a cursory examination, supports Nick's contention that corporations first appeared as organisations in the late 19th century to oversee large scale public projects. If governments can be said not have worked together OPENLY to ensure wealth transference upwards, they have certainly done so implicitly. How else do you account for the current, unbalanced, society we live in...the product of successive governments? Do you think working people are willingly disenfranchising themselves?

Easy credit became the norm because it was an easy way for banks to make (more) money. In fact, there came a point when it was the only way. Once you have no more rich people to lend to, you cash in on the poor ones at prohibitive interest rates. It's the only option. The trouble is that the risk managers got their sums wrong about what the poor borrowers could afford. (The fact that these people became indebted and thus trapped was of neither concern nor interest to anyone in the structured products community of the Financial Services industry. At least until the excrement hit the ventilation extractor.)

Deregulation of markets really amounted to little more than letting the poachers run the game estate. Or to use another metaphor, do you expect good behaviour if you give the lunatics the keys to the asylum? What do you think an institution that is designed to generate profit is going to do when it is deregulated. Take sensible risks? Settle for marginal returns?

The real problem in all this is Stalin. And no, I'm not joking. History always holds the real answers (another point implicitly made by Nick's post). The discrediting of communism (rightly -- but with it -- and wrongly -- went the credibility of more or less every colour of left wing ideology) delivered two decades of unfettered right-wing dominance that delivered a world hallmarked, ultimately, by a divided society and economic collapse. That these regimes still have apologists beggars belief. The rebirth of Keynesian perspectives attests somewhat to this.

You appear to be long on rhetoric and very short on detail.

Edited by sydtheeagle (12 Nov 2014 6.03pm)

Whatever you wish to believe, Gusset.

You support lefty fascists. They aren't for the working man, just for a shift in power. Here's to the new boss...