The Icelandic government fell on Monday, becoming the first regime to collapse as a direct result of the global economic crisis and resulting popular opposition. Months of street protests over the devastating social impact of the collapse of the country's currency and banking system reached a crescendo last week, when thousands of demonstrators rallying outside the parliament building pelted right-wing Independence Party Prime Minister Geir Haarde with eggs, paint and rolls of toilet paper, and police responded by firing tear gas, the first time tear gas was used against the public in Iceland since 1949...more
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Protests over economic crisis topple Icelandic government
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
24 comments:
I just skimmed through the article. Most of it is left wing propaganda.
This quote from the article is a great example of how the left fail to use logic:
"The global economic crisis has broadly discredited the ideology of the capitalist market, but perhaps nowhere more suddenly and explosively than in Iceland. The Independence Party has ruled since 1991, with David Oddsson, now the governor of the central bank, heading the government until 2004. Under Oddsson, the international operations of the major banks grew massively, building up liabilities many times the size of the country's economic output. The country's big banks borrowed $120 billion on international markets early this decade, six times the size of Iceland's gross domestic product. The country's foreign debt peaked at ten times GDP."
The first sentence talks about how free-markets have been discredited, and then it goes on to talk about about the government fucked up the country.
"This quote from the article is a great example of how the left fail to use logic:"
No, it isn't, but your response is.
"The first sentence talks about how free-markets have been discredited, and then it goes on to talk about about the government fucked up the country."
That's because they are implicitly arguing that the government is a result of capitalism, and since every American government to date has been controled by capitalist forces, I see no reason why I should agree with you when you say they are being illogical. It is your job to prove that the current mess is not the result of really-existing-capitalism. And, no, you simply can't redefine capitalism into a moral theory and then tell me that everything that has happened to this point is not capitalism.
I, for one, will only accept really-existing-capitalism as a definition, not the "possible" or the "ethical" capitalism that libertards point to. Therefore, if you want to talk to anyone on the left, or me, you must use reality in your arguments, not pie-in-the-skyism. And correct me if I'm wrong, but a hallmark of logical argument are premises that can be proven to be real.
If you think an economy controlled by a government sanctioned central bank is a FREE MARKET then you do not understand what is meant by a FREE MARKET.
Your "really existing capitalism" is some sort of quasi-fascism. There's nothing about it that's capitalistic.
The 1800's was full of the struggle between the people and the banks and simply because you ignore this and only accept what has become "capitalism" in the 1900's is not my problem. The existence of a central bank was one of the most politically charged issues for a hundred years. There is such thing as capitalism without a central bank. If you want to completely ignore 100 years of history, that's your own ignorance.
"It is your job to prove that the current mess is not the result of really-existing-capitalism."
Why is this my job? I'm arguing AGAINST the current system you knob.
"If you think an economy controlled by a government sanctioned central bank is a FREE MARKET then you do not understand what is meant by a FREE MARKET."
Yes, it is a catch-phrase for exploitation.
"Your "really existing capitalism" is some sort of quasi-fascism. There's nothing about it that's capitalistic"
It has been capitalist right from the beginning. That is how it has developed. Don't like it? That's too bad! Welcome to reality.
"The 1800's was full of the struggle between the people and the banks and simply because you ignore this and only accept what has become "capitalism" in the 1900's is not my problem."
I'm not denying that there are not struggles between the corporate/federalist capitalists and the petty capitalists. What I'm pointing out that is that they are both capitalist, and the bloody petty capitalists lost the argument. THAT is capitalism.
"The existence of a central bank was one of the most politically charged issues for a hundred years. There is such thing as capitalism without a central bank."
There is only your head, Josh, because there has never been "free market". The problem here is that you want to complain about the central banks existing all during capitalism one breath, but in the next you want to say that capitalism existed before the state banks, which it did not. It didnt in England and it didnt in France, two of the key countries in the early years of the development of capitalism. And, no, there was no "capitalism" before the industrial revolution. Shop owners and inner keepers keeping out of the way of the Lords and Kings and from becoming serfs was not capitalism. It was feudalism, pure and simple.
"Why is this my job? I'm arguing AGAINST the current system you knob."
Ah-yat, and the current system is really-existing-capitalism.
I think it is pretty clear that your class of capitalist has been defeated politically.
"I think it is pretty clear that your class of capitalist has been defeated politically."
That doesn't mean the right argument won.
If I was living in the 1700s I would look around and say slavery is the norm. No point in fighting it because this is how society has developed. There would be no point in arguing pie in the sky ideals like abolishing slavery. This is your argument against sound money, individual liberty, and free markets.
"That doesn't mean the right argument won."
Right? I told I'm only interested in really-existing-capitalism, not "should".
"If I was living in the 1700s I would look around and say slavery is the norm. No point in fighting it because this is how society has developed."
Yes, but you are not calling for revolution. You are calling for continual arm-chair argument. Besides, that something like slavery SHOULD be abolished does not change the FACTS of really-existing-slavery, which is what I'm interested in.
"There would be no point in arguing pie in the sky ideals like abolishing slavery."
No, there would be a time. But first you have to know what really-existing-slavery is, something you do not know.
"This is your argument against sound money, individual liberty, and free markets."
Well, no, my argument is a) that is it is not capitalism as it really exists and b) that the gold standard is impractical, individual liberty is not the same as private property, and free markets are immoral. But if you want to bend the course of our argument to suit your purposes, go right ahead.
"Yes, but you are not calling for revolution."
Sure I am. I certainly think there needs to be a revolution.
"free markets are immoral"
Why?
"Why?"
Because they are exploitive, drive down the wealth of the majority, enrich the minority... in the long run..
"Because they are exploitive"
They allow for exploitation of idiots yes; but if an idiot is stupid enough to be exploited and taken advantage of, its probably better wealth isn't in the hand of the idiot anyhow because the idiot obviously doesn't know how to use wealth.
Thankfully, we are not a society of idiots.
"drive down the wealth of the majority"
Can you provide a historical reference where this occurred without government support?
"They allow for exploitation of idiots yes; but if an idiot is stupid enough to be exploited and taken advantage of, its probably better wealth isn't in the hand of the idiot anyhow because the idiot obviously doesn't know how to use wealth."
Unfortunately, economics is not based on intelligence. A majority of the population could be offered low wages and it wouldn't have anything to with their intelligence, but instead to do with their economic position.
Thankfully, we are not a society of idiots.
"
"Thankfully, we are not a society of idiots."
Yeah, if we accepted Austrian economics that would make us so. Thank goodness most people were intelligent to vote out the free market evangelists.
"Thank goodness most people were intelligent to vote out the free market evangelists."
Yea, the world is on a brink of collapse. . . so i guess everything is going swimmingly.
"economics is not based on intelligence."
Intelligence has nothing to do with economics?
"A majority of the population could be offered low wages and it wouldn't have anything to with their intelligence"
For this to be true, you're making the assumption there is one class of employers who collude on wages, which doesn't exist in a free market. This can only exist, and be maintained, with the intervention of the government.
"Yea, the world is on a brink of collapse. . . so i guess everything is going swimmingly."
On the verge of collapse because of corporatism and free market evangelism. Greedy bastards.
"Intelligence has nothing to do with economics?"
I love how you cherry-picked the first sentence of my reply.
Not in relation to what we were arguing (wages), no.
"For this to be true, you're making the assumption there is one class of employers who collude on wages, which doesn't exist in a free market."
Wow, you have swallowed the market evangelist shit in one gulp, eh? Some employers do indeed collude. They are called business and trade associations. Moreover, since the number of workers in relation to the numbers of employers is always higher, the employers can get away with paying low wages without much collusion. Korea is a good example of this.
"This can only exist, and be maintained, with the intervention of the government."
Garbage.
"On the verge of collapse because of corporatism and free market evangelism. Greedy bastards."
No, because of government induced wars, poor monetary policy by the government chartered central banks, and over-spending by government.
"Some employers do indeed collude. They are called business and trade associations."
Right, but these associations have no power in comparison to the market unless they are supported by government. Perfect example would be the Federal Reserve Act. The more prominent bankers were tired of banks being put out of business by more sound competitors they went to the government and wrote legislation to support their cartel. This is the same thing Hasbro and Mattel are doing with the toy industry. It was also done with the railroad industry, and agriculture.
"No, because of government induced wars, poor monetary policy by the government chartered central banks, and over-spending by government."
Yup, which is the result of greedy corporations and free market evangelism. Greedy bastards.
"
Right, but these associations have no power in comparison to the market unless they are supported by government."
Josh, Josh, Josh. They can certainly act in unison without government coordination.
"Perfect example would be the Federal Reserve Act. The more prominent bankers were tired of banks being put out of business by more sound competitors they went to the government and wrote legislation to support their cartel. This is the same thing Hasbro and Mattel are doing with the toy industry. It was also done with the railroad industry, and agriculture."
Note how little I care. For me it is all the same thing: capitalism.
"Yup, which is the result of greedy corporations and free market evangelism. Greedy bastards."
That you equate government action to free-market shows your limited understanding of what I'm talking about.
"They can certainly act in unison without government coordination."
Historically they try. Historically they fail. Historically they go to government to be propped up and to eliminate competition.
"Note how little I care. For me it is all the same thing: capitalism."
That you refuse to separate the Fed from what I'm talking, again, shows your ignorance.
"That you equate government action to free-market shows your limited understanding of what I'm talking about."
That you ignore the causes of government action shows you abhorrent lack of understanding of science.
"Historically they try. Historically they fail. Historically they go to government to be propped up and to eliminate competition."
Both are capitalism to me.
"That you refuse to separate the Fed from what I'm talking, again, shows your ignorance."
Your ignorance of the causes of "the government" shows your ignorance.
"Both are capitalism to me."
Than you have no idea what capitalism is.
"Your ignorance of the causes of "the government" shows your ignorance."
I understand the causes of "the government". The causes of "the government" in Nazi Germany and the corrupt governments throughout the third world arrived "scientifically".
I'm sorry, I'd prefer not to be living in a third world, regardless of bucking against the mainstream ideals that have put in the place the current regime.
We're arguing what is right and what is wrong.
Just because it "is" doesn't mean it "should be"
"Than you have no idea what capitalism is."
No, you.
"I understand the causes of "the government". The causes of "the government" in Nazi Germany and the corrupt governments throughout the third world arrived "scientifically"."
Yes, and that government was the result of capitalism, too. :)
"I'm sorry, I'd prefer not to be living in a third world, regardless of bucking against the mainstream ideals that have put in the place the current regime."
I have no idea what you are talking about.
"We're arguing what is right and what is wrong."
No, you are. I'm arguing about what is, what is its cause, and where it is possiblity going to lead. That's what I'm arguing.
"Just because it "is" doesn't mean it "should be""
I know you are not a scientist, Josh, but maybe you should actually read some sciene fiction to aquaint yourself with the culture.
"No, you."
No. Its pretty clear to me. I try to explain it to you, but you keep accusing me of supporting something I don't. It's no fun talking to a wall.
"Yes, and that government was the result of capitalism, too."
Government is never the result of capitalism.
"I have no idea what you are talking about."
You say government is the result of the people and therefore its decisions are supported by the people which provide their legitimacy. What I'm saying is regardless of the legitimacy of the decisions, it doesn't mean they're right. These are decisions that are typical in countries much poorer than the US and have historically made countries poorer. So simply because the decisions have democratic legitimacy doesn't mean they're right, and I'd prefer to be on the side of right, than the main stream ideals that provide support for these illogical policies.
"No, you are. I'm arguing about what is, what is its cause, and where it is possiblity going to lead. That's what I'm arguing."
Well, you are arguing what is and is its cause, however I'm not which is probably our problem. You either don't understand right and wrong, or reject the notion of right and wrong, I guess. Because of this, you have no idea where current events will lead, because you reject logical reasoning behand historical events and trends.
"Government is never the result of capitalism."
LOL. Government *poofed* out of nowhere!
"You say government is the result of the people and therefore its decisions are supported by the people which provide their legitimacy. What I'm saying is regardless of the legitimacy of the decisions, it doesn't mean they're right. These are decisions that are typical in countries much poorer than the US and have historically made countries poorer. So simply because the decisions have democratic legitimacy doesn't mean they're right, and I'd prefer to be on the side of right, than the main stream ideals that provide support for these illogical policies."
Still have no idea what you are talking about. If the prevailing economy doesn't help people, it is not right.
"Well, you are arguing what is and is its cause, however I'm not which is probably our problem. You either don't understand right and wrong, or reject the notion of right and wrong, I guess. Because of this, you have no idea where current events will lead, because you reject logical reasoning behand historical events and trends."
Right doesn't poof out of nowhere, Josh. It is as much the result of historical causal factors as hard science fact. You don't like this fact? Too fucking bad. When you are dead and gone cause and effect will still rule, and your "objective" morals will have become as obsolete as Greek sexuality.
"Still have no idea what you are talking about. If the prevailing economy doesn't help people, it is not right."
People need to help themselves and those they wish to help. An economy isn't an entity that exists to help people.
"People need to help themselves and those they wish to help. An economy isn't an entity that exists to help people." Actually, yes it is. History has proven this point over and over again. Revolution after revolution has overthrown the vicious nature of private property. Slavery, serfdom, 19th century morals, perfect examples.
Post a Comment