Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

[Harry Bosch]

Jimmy: insolvency is when an entity is unable to pay it's debts when owed. I believe that all the large US banks were publicly owned. If they were insolvent, it would be easy to demonstrate. Financials are reported in their 10-ks. I need some proof! Certainly, of all the large banks, BofA might have gone under. They also weren't "insolvent". But there is no doubt that they were in major trouble. I'm a Tarp supporter. I'm a supporter of regulation. A well regulated capitalist system is the best system. However, it was the vibrant capitalist economies of 2005, 06, and 07 that generated the incredible windfalls that funded the "transfusions" that smoothed out the economy after the crash. You can't have one without the other.

I kind of get what you are saying, but... It is obviously very complicated, but I'd say this article is good summary of what matches my views, with a snpipet regarding the failure to provide oversight:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/robert...tdown-and-where-the-blame-falls/#1810584ea72a

How did we reach this very near call on a total systemic breakdown?

Firstly, there were no cops on the beat. Laissez-faire free market economics was the prevailing public policy. Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan spoke of irrational exuberance but took no steps to cool off markets in the late 1990s. In fact, he was asked by Loews chairman Larry Tisch and former Goldman Sachs co-chairman John Whitehead to raise the margins on trading, and refused, claiming falsely that such a move was up to the SEC-- and not the Fed. Not true.

In 1999 the Glass-Steagall Act-- which had separated commercial banking from investment banking for 66 years, was overturned-- a move that opened the door to more speculative trading on the part of Wall Street firms.

Then, in 2000 Messrs. Greenspan, former Treasury Secretary Rubin and his successor Lawrence Summers pressed to pass a bill that would prohibit the regulation of derivatives-- the fastest growing and most complicated and murky new financial product.

I think the bigger point is that due to the lack of oversight and very flawed thinking by 'free market' advocates in the 2 decades prior, largely let this disaster build up until it blew up. If the FR hadn't bailed out AIG (which prior to that I don't think they were supposed to cover such companies) their $540 billion of collapsing credit default swaps would have probably dragged most of the big investment banks down under with them. Sure the FR did some massive things along with TARP, to bail out the mess, but the mess (failure) was largely due to the previous 20 year of lack of oversight and adaption to changes in investment banking.

I can't disagree with you here in the least.

 

[Angry Floof]

Decent social reform must also take into consideration that the cake is only so big, and that each slice must be accounted for otherwise there'll be nothing left of it to feed those who never got a slice. People like Sanders and his prodigy AOC believe that the cake is magic, that each time a piece is sliced off, a new piece will magically grow to replace it.

That's false. Wealth is not a finite amount. It's something that is constantly moving, ebbing and flowing. It's much more fluid than your simpleton analogy of a cake.

The cake, in reality, is the system, not a noun but a verb, and that active, constantly moving system is set up to move more wealth to the wealthy and move austerity and punishment to the poor.

Whatever poor people pay out for goods and services ends up in the pockets of the wealthy. Whatever income poor people make will be kept low by that system so that more of it is retained by the wealthy and corporations.

Entitlement is the mentality of the wealthy; shame is the mentality of poverty. It's not the other way around as the wealthy and corporations and their wholly owned politician assets want you to believe.

 

[funinspace]

I kind of get what you are saying, but... It is obviously very complicated, but I'd say this article is good summary of what matches my views, with a snpipet regarding the failure to provide oversight:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/robert...tdown-and-where-the-blame-falls/#1810584ea72a


I think the bigger point is that due to the lack of oversight and very flawed thinking by 'free market' advocates in the 2 decades prior, largely let this disaster build up until it blew up. If the FR hadn't bailed out AIG (which prior to that I don't think they were supposed to cover such companies) their $540 billion of collapsing credit default swaps would have probably dragged most of the big investment banks down under with them. Sure the FR did some massive things along with TARP, to bail out the mess, but the mess (failure) was largely due to the previous 20 year of lack of oversight and adaption to changes in investment banking.

I can't disagree with you here in the least.

Cool!

I should have added: I also don't think this show is done. The mess is a significant part of adding another roughly $10 trillion in national debt. Additionally, the FR only barely reduced the roughly $3 trillion in QE holdings before having to go full stop. And they have been only able to increase their funds rate by a tiny amount after a decade, and that too has probably stopped. The next recession is going to really ugly government debt wise. Will the FR QE experiment go to $10 trillion next time?

 

[Harry Bosch]

I kind of get what you are saying, but... It is obviously very complicated, but I'd say this article is good summary of what matches my views, with a snpipet regarding the failure to provide oversight:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/robert...tdown-and-where-the-blame-falls/#1810584ea72a


I think the bigger point is that due to the lack of oversight and very flawed thinking by 'free market' advocates in the 2 decades prior, largely let this disaster build up until it blew up. If the FR hadn't bailed out AIG (which prior to that I don't think they were supposed to cover such companies) their $540 billion of collapsing credit default swaps would have probably dragged most of the big investment banks down under with them. Sure the FR did some massive things along with TARP, to bail out the mess, but the mess (failure) was largely due to the previous 20 year of lack of oversight and adaption to changes in investment banking.

I can't disagree with you here in the least.

Cool!

I should have added: I also don't think this show is done. The mess is a significant part of adding another roughly $10 trillion in national debt. Additionally, the FR only barely reduced the roughly $3 trillion in QE holdings before having to go full stop. And they have been only able to increase their funds rate by a tiny amount after a decade, and that too has probably stopped. The next recession is going to really ugly government debt wise. Will the FR QE experiment go to $10 trillion next time?

Well, I think that there is going to be busts. It's just the nature of the mixed capitalist economy. When things are going well, people are happy. They leverage up to invest and buy. They are aggressive. Then the economy slows, people get scared. They scale back. Put off their purchases. The next recession is coming, there is no doubt about that. It could be here today, maybe it will start next year, maybe in five years. But it's coming. BTW: no amount of regulation can prevent all future recessions in the future.

BTW: what is FR?

 

[funinspace]

Cool!

I should have added: I also don't think this show is done. The mess is a significant part of adding another roughly $10 trillion in national debt. Additionally, the FR only barely reduced the roughly $3 trillion in QE holdings before having to go full stop. And they have been only able to increase their funds rate by a tiny amount after a decade, and that too has probably stopped. The next recession is going to really ugly government debt wise. Will the FR QE experiment go to $10 trillion next time?

Well, I think that there is going to be busts. It's just the nature of the mixed capitalist economy. When things are going well, people are happy. They leverage up to invest and buy. They are aggressive. Then the economy slows, people get scared. They scale back. Put off their purchases. The next recession is coming, there is no doubt about that. It could be here today, maybe it will start next year, maybe in five years. But it's coming. BTW: no amount of regulation can prevent all future recessions in the future.

BTW: what is FR?

Ah, sorry...FR is my short for Federal Reserve.

I understand and expect business cycles and recessions. That wasn't really what I was trying to describe. I would have understood a normal enough recession in 2008-9. What we got was a big mess do to extreme leveraging combined with nearly intentional blindness by the Federal regulating parties, egged on by several administrations, and Congressional changes. Lots of people joined by speculating in many housing markets, along with irresponsible lending practices. The Repugs have doubled down on fiscal irresponsibility with their 2017 tax cut as we are at the tail end of an economic expansion. We are already back at the trillion dollar deficit. What will be the deficit in the next recession? How will the FR try to help in this next recession? Will driving QE purchase to $10 trillion help? It hasn't been helping Japan... Anywho, we are pretty much off topic if this thread really has one...so I stayed with the short version.

 

[angelo]

Capitalism doesn't need apologists, just like evolution by natural selection doesn't need apologists! It's the only system that has dragged billions of people out of poverty. All other systems have failed and will fail.

Capitalism failed terribly in ‘08. Nearly every major bank in the US was insolvent.

Can you name which socialist nations have become successful utopias, apart from Cuba, Venezuela of course!

 

[angelo]

The whole capitalism thing is the same as post hoc ergo propter hoc--after-the-fact-therefore-because-of-the-fact fallacy. A lot of people make the exact claim about technology: "The world is better off now because of science and technology." What else? Democracy? The United Nations? Government Intervention.

But additionally the claim that capitalism is the cause of world greatness cherry picks the "successes" while ignoring "failures" like Haiti or wherever. Capitalism existed for centuries and made no headway in improving lives, but instead worsened them. It's the whole reason that alternative forms of economics came into being. Remember child laborers in factories dying? What were the variables that changed in history that disallowed child labor in factories? It wasn't capitalism.

Now a right-winger like angelo may say something like this:
"Capitalism doesn't need apologists, just like evolution by natural selection doesn't need apologists!"

But there's actually a little value in looking at this like science and in particular evolution. Think about different economic systems and variants thereof like species competing in a world ecosystem. Pure capitalism failed miserably and necessitated different economic systems to compete with it. Capitalism then mutated and even hybridized with socialism in order to provide a more optimal economic system...some of the mutations are regulation and various large safety nets for big societal institutions such as the banks and corporations and others are safety nets for individuals--which capitalism hybridized from socialism.

This mutated capitalism has again a giant opportunity to fail in a catastrophic event, such as a rogue asteroid hitting the planet or global warming. If we could just name the actual variables at play honestly that improved the economic system, then we could say what is going to help us out of this: democracy, government intervention? Is that it? Meanwhile, you can see what sticking to a story that capitalism solves everything gets you: it gets you angelo denying that the planet is getting warmer because how could that be possible since to him pure capitalism is perfect and never needs to evolve into something else? That's like saying our ancient primate ancestors are smarter than us.

Allow me to put that another way> Of all the systems of government or ideology, which none are perfect. Capitalism is perhaps the best of a bad bunch of ideas.

http://www.aei.org/publication/the-...nefited-the-ordinary-citizen-not-the-wealthy/

 

[angelo]

Decent social reform must also take into consideration that the cake is only so big, and that each slice must be accounted for otherwise there'll be nothing left of it to feed those who never got a slice. People like Sanders and his prodigy AOC believe that the cake is magic, that each time a piece is sliced off, a new piece will magically grow to replace it.

You are ignoring the fact that the rich are taking the cake and only leaving crumbs for the rest of us. The rich are telling you to "Look over there" while they are picking your pockets. And you are doing it.

Capitalism allows you to try to better yourself by hard work and enterprise. Perhaps by starting a successful business that may employ otherwise unemployed people who in turn, also succeed or at least put a roof over their heads and put food on the table rather than depend on government handouts.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The whole capitalism thing is the same as post hoc ergo propter hoc--after-the-fact-therefore-because-of-the-fact fallacy. A lot of people make the exact claim about technology: "The world is better off now because of science and technology." What else? Democracy? The United Nations? Government Intervention.

But additionally the claim that capitalism is the cause of world greatness cherry picks the "successes" while ignoring "failures" like Haiti or wherever. Capitalism existed for centuries and made no headway in improving lives, but instead worsened them. It's the whole reason that alternative forms of economics came into being. Remember child laborers in factories dying? What were the variables that changed in history that disallowed child labor in factories? It wasn't capitalism.

Now a right-winger like angelo may say something like this:
"Capitalism doesn't need apologists, just like evolution by natural selection doesn't need apologists!"

But there's actually a little value in looking at this like science and in particular evolution. Think about different economic systems and variants thereof like species competing in a world ecosystem. Pure capitalism failed miserably and necessitated different economic systems to compete with it. Capitalism then mutated and even hybridized with socialism in order to provide a more optimal economic system...some of the mutations are regulation and various large safety nets for big societal institutions such as the banks and corporations and others are safety nets for individuals--which capitalism hybridized from socialism.

This mutated capitalism has again a giant opportunity to fail in a catastrophic event, such as a rogue asteroid hitting the planet or global warming. If we could just name the actual variables at play honestly that improved the economic system, then we could say what is going to help us out of this: democracy, government intervention? Is that it? Meanwhile, you can see what sticking to a story that capitalism solves everything gets you: it gets you angelo denying that the planet is getting warmer because how could that be possible since to him pure capitalism is perfect and never needs to evolve into something else? That's like saying our ancient primate ancestors are smarter than us.

Allow me to put that another way> Of all the systems of government or ideology, which none are perfect. Capitalism is perhaps the best of a bad bunch of ideas.

http://www.aei.org/publication/the-...nefited-the-ordinary-citizen-not-the-wealthy/

It isn't capitalism so much as evolution of capitalism into something else that includes regulation, tax, democracy, social welfare or socialism characteristics, blocking monopolies etc. Capitalism by itself is abusive. Also as I pointed out, it failed and will fail again unless there is non-capitalist intervention to stop global catastrophes.

 

[southernhybrid]

Decent social reform must also take into consideration that the cake is only so big, and that each slice must be accounted for otherwise there'll be nothing left of it to feed those who never got a slice. People like Sanders and his prodigy AOC believe that the cake is magic, that each time a piece is sliced off, a new piece will magically grow to replace it.

You are ignoring the fact that the rich are taking the cake and only leaving crumbs for the rest of us. The rich are telling you to "Look over there" while they are picking your pockets. And you are doing it.

Capitalism allows you to try to better yourself by hard work and enterprise. Perhaps by starting a successful business that may employ otherwise unemployed people who in turn, also succeed or at least put a roof over their heads and put food on the table rather than depend on government handouts.

That only works when wages are high enough to allow people to put a roof over their heads and food on the table. In the US, there are many people who work full time, but still rely on the government for help with food, and housing. I've worked with such people. One told me that she was embarrassed to be taking SNAP benefits. I reminded her that if her employer paid her more than 7.50 an hour, she wouldn't need to rely on SNAP. Then I told her that when someone like her was working but still needed government help, I see these programs as welfare for business, since they allow business to underpay their employees, then the employees need to receive help from the government to survive.

Capitalism doesn't work well without strong regulations, and decent wages for employees. That, I think, is why so many adults in the US, are embracing socialism. I don't think socialism, in the traditional sense, is the answer. We just need better regulated capitalism along with an adequate safety net. ( capitalism with socialistic programs )

There is no reason why a country with as much wealth as there is in the US, can't help all people have enough to eat and have basic housing. In the decades when I was a child, most people who worked full-time, even in a low skilled job, could still afford housing, food and basic necessities. Wealth disparity wan't nearly at the level that it is these days. Wealthy people didn't seem as greedy as most seem today. They paid higher taxes and paid their workers enough to live a basic, but comfortable life. Larger corporations were often unionized, which allowed workers to demand better wages, benefits and working conditions. Unions are all but dead these days. And, employers that treated their workers well in the first place, didn't attract unions.

The culture has changed, and it's not changed for the better. I don't think there was a single homeless person in my town in the 50s or 60s, but these days, homelessness is everywhere. Part of that is due to how we have failed our mentally ill folks, who make up a high percentage of the homeless, but a good part of it is due to the fact that people can no longer survive in low paying jobs. There are workers who are homeless. It's extremely difficult for them to maintain a job when they have to use public restrooms to bathe and sleep in tents etc. If you've never read about what some of these people must do to survive, I suggest that you do, as it will help you have a better understanding of what is happening in the US.

 

[lpetrich]

I suggest looking at organized crime some time. Much of it involves businesses that defy government regulation, and what it involves is not very pretty. Like settling disputes with murder.  Murder, Inc was what journalists called a loose guild of professional murderers in US organized crime. They committed some 400 to 1000 murders.

Most organized-crime gangs are not very big, and they tend to have some shared ethnicity. Thus suggests that they depend a lot on members being familiar with each other. That is not a good way to build a big business, because in a big business, one wants more impersonal sorts of relationships across the business.

 

[lpetrich]

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "Two years ago, Bodega owners across NYC (& cheered by neighbors)shut their shops citywide to protest Trump’s #MuslimBan. Today, that same community is banding together to reject sales of the NY Post at bodegas citywide. This is what real unity (& NYC solidarity) looks like … https://t.co/XXcL4PQs4I" noting Dr.Debbie Almontaser on Twitter: "Yemeni Americans held a 1,000 bodega strike against the #MuslimBan, tonight we just declared a boycott of the racist NY Post! Starting tomorrow morning Yemeni American merchants will be rejecting the sale of the NY Post! NY Post take your papers back! #BoycottNYPost… https://t.co/U7Tvo62PKx" referring to Covers for Thursday, April 11, 2019 | New York Post
A picture of a WTC tower attacked as the other one burned. It stated:

Rep. Omar stated 'Some People Did Something'

Here's Your Something
2,977 people dead by terrorism

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "One of the ugly aftermaths of 9/11 that is too often ignored is the codified profiling of Muslim-Americans solely bc of their faith. No-fly lists. Warantless mosque surveillance. All of it. To fear+suspect all Muslims due to the actions of terrorists is bigotry. Plain & simple.… https://t.co/4Jw1vdMPmo" noting Jodi Jacobson on Twitter: "The reaction to @IlhanMN's speech proves the very point she was making."

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "“They’re a billion-dollar company because of us. Working-class Americans haven’t been this fed up with their employers since the 1980s.” https://t.co/HdgZYgyBla" noting Stop & Shop strike: supermarket employees are striking across the Northeast - Vox

Within 24 hours, the Stop & Shop stoppage has become the largest private sector strike in at least three years, showing that last year’s labor unrest was not an isolated phenomenon.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Decent social reform must also take into consideration that the cake is only so big, and that each slice must be accounted for otherwise there'll be nothing left of it to feed those who never got a slice. People like Sanders and his prodigy AOC believe that the cake is magic, that each time a piece is sliced off, a new piece will magically grow to replace it.

That's false. Wealth is not a finite amount. It's something that is constantly moving, ebbing and flowing. It's much more fluid than your simpleton analogy of a cake.

The cake, in reality, is the system, not a noun but a verb, and that active, constantly moving system is set up to move more wealth to the wealthy and move austerity and punishment to the poor.

Whatever poor people pay out for goods and services ends up in the pockets of the wealthy. Whatever income poor people make will be kept low by that system so that more of it is retained by the wealthy and corporations.

Entitlement is the mentality of the wealthy; shame is the mentality of poverty. It's not the other way around as the wealthy and corporations and their wholly owned politician assets want you to believe.

Yet another version of eat the rich. It still doesn't work no matter how many guises you give it.

 

[Angry Floof]

Decent social reform must also take into consideration that the cake is only so big, and that each slice must be accounted for otherwise there'll be nothing left of it to feed those who never got a slice. People like Sanders and his prodigy AOC believe that the cake is magic, that each time a piece is sliced off, a new piece will magically grow to replace it.

That's false. Wealth is not a finite amount. It's something that is constantly moving, ebbing and flowing. It's much more fluid than your simpleton analogy of a cake.

The cake, in reality, is the system, not a noun but a verb, and that active, constantly moving system is set up to move more wealth to the wealthy and move austerity and punishment to the poor.

Whatever poor people pay out for goods and services ends up in the pockets of the wealthy. Whatever income poor people make will be kept low by that system so that more of it is retained by the wealthy and corporations.

Entitlement is the mentality of the wealthy; shame is the mentality of poverty. It's not the other way around as the wealthy and corporations and their wholly owned politician assets want you to believe.

Yet another version of eat the rich. It still doesn't work no matter how many guises you give it.

Calm your tits. Removing unearned perks and unwarranted control of an economic system that creates more poverty for more people is not eating the rich or hurting them at all.

The rich are the parasites of our system, no matter how many lies you and the people you suck up to tell about it. Entitlement is the psychology of wealth, and shame is the psychology of poverty, no matter how much the parasites lie about that.

 

[blastula]

I like the rich, they're delicious!

 

[angelo]

The whole capitalism thing is the same as post hoc ergo propter hoc--after-the-fact-therefore-because-of-the-fact fallacy. A lot of people make the exact claim about technology: "The world is better off now because of science and technology." What else? Democracy? The United Nations? Government Intervention.

But additionally the claim that capitalism is the cause of world greatness cherry picks the "successes" while ignoring "failures" like Haiti or wherever. Capitalism existed for centuries and made no headway in improving lives, but instead worsened them. It's the whole reason that alternative forms of economics came into being. Remember child laborers in factories dying? What were the variables that changed in history that disallowed child labor in factories? It wasn't capitalism.

Now a right-winger like angelo may say something like this:
"Capitalism doesn't need apologists, just like evolution by natural selection doesn't need apologists!"

But there's actually a little value in looking at this like science and in particular evolution. Think about different economic systems and variants thereof like species competing in a world ecosystem. Pure capitalism failed miserably and necessitated different economic systems to compete with it. Capitalism then mutated and even hybridized with socialism in order to provide a more optimal economic system...some of the mutations are regulation and various large safety nets for big societal institutions such as the banks and corporations and others are safety nets for individuals--which capitalism hybridized from socialism.

This mutated capitalism has again a giant opportunity to fail in a catastrophic event, such as a rogue asteroid hitting the planet or global warming. If we could just name the actual variables at play honestly that improved the economic system, then we could say what is going to help us out of this: democracy, government intervention? Is that it? Meanwhile, you can see what sticking to a story that capitalism solves everything gets you: it gets you angelo denying that the planet is getting warmer because how could that be possible since to him pure capitalism is perfect and never needs to evolve into something else? That's like saying our ancient primate ancestors are smarter than us.

Allow me to put that another way> Of all the systems of government or ideology, which none are perfect. Capitalism is perhaps the best of a bad bunch of ideas.

http://www.aei.org/publication/the-...nefited-the-ordinary-citizen-not-the-wealthy/

It isn't capitalism so much as evolution of capitalism into something else that includes regulation, tax, democracy, social welfare or socialism characteristics, blocking monopolies etc. Capitalism by itself is abusive. Also as I pointed out, it failed and will fail again unless there is non-capitalist intervention to stop global catastrophes.

You mean a dictatorship or even worse, a theocracy is the only thing that may save the world?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

It isn't capitalism so much as evolution of capitalism into something else that includes regulation, tax, democracy, social welfare or socialism characteristics, blocking monopolies etc. Capitalism by itself is abusive. Also as I pointed out, it failed and will fail again unless there is non-capitalist intervention to stop global catastrophes.

You mean a dictatorship or even worse, a theocracy is the only thing that may save the world?

No, a fanatical belief in pure, unadulterated capitalism will destroy the world.

 

[angelo]

Capitalism allows you to try to better yourself by hard work and enterprise. Perhaps by starting a successful business that may employ otherwise unemployed people who in turn, also succeed or at least put a roof over their heads and put food on the table rather than depend on government handouts.

That only works when wages are high enough to allow people to put a roof over their heads and food on the table. In the US, there are many people who work full time, but still rely on the government for help with food, and housing. I've worked with such people. One told me that she was embarrassed to be taking SNAP benefits. I reminded her that if her employer paid her more than 7.50 an hour, she wouldn't need to rely on SNAP. Then I told her that when someone like her was working but still needed government help, I see these programs as welfare for business, since they allow business to underpay their employees, then the employees need to receive help from the government to survive.

Capitalism doesn't work well without strong regulations, and decent wages for employees. That, I think, is why so many adults in the US, are embracing socialism. I don't think socialism, in the traditional sense, is the answer. We just need better regulated capitalism along with an adequate safety net. ( capitalism with socialistic programs )

There is no reason why a country with as much wealth as there is in the US, can't help all people have enough to eat and have basic housing. In the decades when I was a child, most people who worked full-time, even in a low skilled job, could still afford housing, food and basic necessities. Wealth disparity wan't nearly at the level that it is these days. Wealthy people didn't seem as greedy as most seem today. They paid higher taxes and paid their workers enough to live a basic, but comfortable life. Larger corporations were often unionized, which allowed workers to demand better wages, benefits and working conditions. Unions are all but dead these days. And, employers that treated their workers well in the first place, didn't attract unions.

The culture has changed, and it's not changed for the better. I don't think there was a single homeless person in my town in the 50s or 60s, but these days, homelessness is everywhere. Part of that is due to how we have failed our mentally ill folks, who make up a high percentage of the homeless, but a good part of it is due to the fact that people can no longer survive in low paying jobs. There are workers who are homeless. It's extremely difficult for them to maintain a job when they have to use public restrooms to bathe and sleep in tents etc. If you've never read about what some of these people must do to survive, I suggest that you do, as it will help you have a better understanding of what is happening in the US.

Interesting reading for those who lack knowledge of economic facts.............................................https://www.forbes.com/sites/adammi...minimum-wages-impact-employment/#4854441e7d02

 

[angelo]

It isn't capitalism so much as evolution of capitalism into something else that includes regulation, tax, democracy, social welfare or socialism characteristics, blocking monopolies etc. Capitalism by itself is abusive. Also as I pointed out, it failed and will fail again unless there is non-capitalist intervention to stop global catastrophes.

You mean a dictatorship or even worse, a theocracy is the only thing that may save the world?

No, a fanatical belief in pure, unadulterated capitalism will destroy the world.

It hasn't done so up to now, neither will it do so in future. Capitalism works in the same ways as evolution by natural selection. By letting the market [demand for goods and services] sort itself out by natural selection, creates new industries, say, like in IT for example, and eventually kill off no longer relevant one, like say, video rental stores, or the old blacksmith. Are there still chimney sweeps? A young lady neighbor of mine couldn't fine a job, as youth unemployment is very high around here, up to 20% and more. I suggested to her she should place an add for a dog walking job in our local paper.
That was a few months ago. She's now knocking back work she's so busy and earning up to $600 per 6 days week and still leaving her time for her studies.

 

[Patooka]

$600 AU for six days work is fucking bullshit. You can't physically live off that in most places in Australia. That's a little less than my weekly rent in Quakers Hill.