QUOTE (Iridur @ 2/11/2011, 20:55)
Ok, let me make another question, if you could indulge my pestering:
Knowing that the financial and trade markets act as a bridge between producers and money lenders, or at least this was its original purpose (which remains, only now we have a lot of speculatory and futures trading, but then again), don't you think that markets are tolerated exactly because of the threat that a lack of those funds might pose?
I am afraid I do not understand the question. Iridur. It is certainly true that the people who make things need to be able to get credit, because there is a time lag between spending the money to make something and getting paid for making it. So there needs to be some means of ensuring that they can do that. If you are saying that people can't always be expected to save up so that they can cover that lag then you are right: that is what I think is called a liquidity problem and it is what the banking system, public or private is expected to do: to advance credit and keep things moving.
That has nothing whatsoever to do with speculation, so far as I can see. The traders described in the OP do not have any money: they advise people who do have money what stocks to buy and sell. They have no more idea than I have, in reality. So they are of no use whatever. But a great deal of the money which could be used for a proper purpose sticks to their fingers and so the funds available for credit are lower than they should be. And the sums are very far from trivial because the banks are now in the business of speculation too: which they were not allowed to do before. And they are magicking money up out of thin air: that will always crash in the end. They will lose the imaginary money of course: but they will lose the real money of depositors and pension funds etc as well: and we cannot allow the ordinary depositor to lose in that way. Thus money must be found from somewhere to ensure the depositors do not lose: and to keep credit available for the real economy. There are three possible sources for that money: governments can print it: ordinary people who had nothing at all to do with the problem can donate it in the form of poverty: or we can turn these thieves/idiots upside down and shake it out of their pockets. Governments have some responsibility for ceding their control in the first place: but any action they take will be predicated on a reframing of who is "us": suddenly all those ordinary people who were not able, and were not allowed, to know what was going on (and were therefore "them") become us when the price is to be paid. Government action in the form of printing money will affect the new "us". How much it affects us depends on how far we are prepared to make those responsible take the consequences. I personally would put no limit on that: as they are prepared to put no limit on the poverty they will inflict on the people. There are no other alternatives; someone must pay: they were at the party and they reaped the benefit of their folly/ crime. So I think they should pay and if that is not enough then when they have nothing left the rest of us will see what we can do.
QUOTE
Sidenote (not part of the question, but then again, who cares?)
What I mean here is, yes, the system is flawed, but so many dudes and girls (companies) depend on the market's toys (medium of exchange) to survive that the parents (government) don't dare ruling out the toxic components that come with the service (unfair ammount paid for dubious competence).
There are far fewer rich and ridiculous people than there are ordinary ones: And they hold a great deal of the total wealth in the world, because the neoliberal project made sure that would happen. The governments have ceded their power to those people, and they had no mandate to do that, because in those circumstances there is no democracy. The toxic components are not a law of nature: they are a consequence human decisions. We can eliminate them if we choose
