- Jul 2, 2009
- 3,406
- 1
- 13,485
- Status
- Mar 10, 2009
- 7,268
- 1
- 0
Captain_Cavman said:
Some ideas could include:
- ensuring the establishment of a global Tobin tax at the G20 tomorrow;
- breaking up too big to fail financial institutions and limiting how big they can get;
- total separation of banking from investment;
- disincentivizing extremely risky and speculative investments and limiting the proliferation of complex (exotic) securities no one (not even the creator) understands); disincentivizing risky behavior of traders
- turning investment firms back into private partnerships, as opposed to publicly traded company;
- fair renumeration in the financial services industry / salary caps to limit risk taking;
- rolling back (the influence of) HFT (to addres flash crashes, quote stuffing and all kinds of non-productive, inefficient and expensive shenanigans on the markets);
- strengthening domestic and global regulations, regulatory institutions and law enforcement agencies to prosecute violators (partly paid for by a Tobin tax?)
- working on the establishment of truly independent rating agencies
Sustainability ought to be the guiding principle.
Feel free to add to the list.
Hugh Januss said:
I was exercising my right. That's the first comment I've seen you make in a while. You must be getting it regular or business is good. Either way, Congrats
make it into a stock!!! and sell it or insure it!!!
""Dealerships Package Billions Of Dollars Worth Of Subprime Auto Loans Into Securities
Auto loan financiers are beginning to adopt a practice from the housing industry that many say played a significant role in the meltdown of the housing market.
Buy Here Pay Here dealerships -- which issue loans to borrowers that often can't qualify for a traditional car loan and in many cases require the borrower to return to their lot to pay them off -- are packaging the loans and selling them to investors, the Los Angeles Times reports. The practice of packaging shoddy auto loans into securities and selling them to investors -- $15 billion worth in the last two years -- is reminiscent of a craze popular among mortgage lenders in the lead up to the housing and financial crisis.
The practice may become more prevalent as potential car buyers with poor credit find it easier to get loans. New car loans for buyers with credit below prime rating rose more than 20 percent in the second quarter of 2011 compared with the same period last year, according to the Automotive Credit Trends Report cited by Fox Business. The proliferation of easy access loans pushed the average credit score for new car loans down 10 points, the survey found.
""
""Dealerships Package Billions Of Dollars Worth Of Subprime Auto Loans Into Securities
Auto loan financiers are beginning to adopt a practice from the housing industry that many say played a significant role in the meltdown of the housing market.
Buy Here Pay Here dealerships -- which issue loans to borrowers that often can't qualify for a traditional car loan and in many cases require the borrower to return to their lot to pay them off -- are packaging the loans and selling them to investors, the Los Angeles Times reports. The practice of packaging shoddy auto loans into securities and selling them to investors -- $15 billion worth in the last two years -- is reminiscent of a craze popular among mortgage lenders in the lead up to the housing and financial crisis.
The practice may become more prevalent as potential car buyers with poor credit find it easier to get loans. New car loans for buyers with credit below prime rating rose more than 20 percent in the second quarter of 2011 compared with the same period last year, according to the Automotive Credit Trends Report cited by Fox Business. The proliferation of easy access loans pushed the average credit score for new car loans down 10 points, the survey found.
""
- Jul 9, 2009
- 7,962
- 1,388
- 20,680
patricknd said:I was exercising my right. That's the first comment I've seen you make in a while. You must be getting it regular or business is good. Either way, Congrats
Business is just OK.
- Mar 11, 2009
- 10,526
- 3,865
- 28,180
Hugh Januss said:Business is just OK.
glad to hear it
Alpe d'Huez said:
if you meant me i wasn't insulting hugh. i knew he had to have something good going on.
- Mar 10, 2009
- 7,268
- 1
- 0
I believe someone (Merckx) mentioned slavoj zizek a while back. He has a column in the guardian, if you are interested, here is the latest one on the occupy movement:
Occupy first. Demands come later
Occupy first. Demands come later
- Jun 22, 2009
- 4,991
- 1
- 0
Meanwhile.....
Is the US heading for war with Iran?
With an election coming and the economy struggling, conflict may not appeal to Obama, but the drumbeat is getting louder
Ewen MacAskill in Washington and Harriet Sherwood in Jerusalem
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 2 November 2011 17.52 GMT
War with Iran is the last thing Barack Obama needs with the American economy in dire trouble and a tough White House election campaign looming next year, according to officials in Washington as well as political analysts.
But while the Obama administration is desperate to avoid another conflict – it would be America's fourth in a decade – the drumbeat from Israel has been growing louder.
The Israeli cabinet was reported on Wednesday to be debating whether to launch air strikes on Iranian nuclear sites in the coming weeks. The prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, and the defence minister, Ehud Barak, are lobbying in favour of action, but other senior ministers are urging caution.
In response, Iran has warned, as it has in the past, that any attack by Israel would result in retaliation against the US. The Iranian news agency ISNA quoted Hassan Firouzabadi, Iran's military chief, as saying: "The Zionist regime's military attack against Iran will inflict heavy damages to the US as well as the Zionist regime."
The rhetoric from Tel Aviv and Tehran is making some within the Obama administration nervous.
A Washington official familiar with the issue acknowledged the temperature has been rising and that Israel introduced an unpredictable element. He reiterated, however, that the policy of the Obama administration was to pursue all diplomatic channels, backed by tougher sanctions, and avoid military action.
"I do not think the US has the stomach for it," Sam Gardiner, a retired air force colonel who taught strategy at the National War College and who has specialised in carrying out war games targeting Iran, said. But if Israel went ahead, it would be difficult for the US to stay out. "The US would have to be involved and finish it," he said.
A congressional hearing on Iran last week was told that the Pentagon has a series of contingency plans for military action, ranging from all-out war to limited operations. Obama had signed off on these, the hearing was told.
Retired general Jack Keane was hawkish, urging escalation. "We've got to put our hand around their throat now," he said. The hearing was told options included increased covert action, more cyberwarfare and sanctions that would target the Iranian central bank, a serious move that Iran might regard as tantamount to a declaration of war.
But Keane and other military colleagues giving evidence on Capitol Hill all stopped short of advocating an air strike against Iran. That has been line for years from the Pentagon, which sees all-out war against Iran as the worst of options.
The issue of a possible military attack on Iran was reignited in Israel by influential columnist Nahum Barnea last Friday. "Rumours are increasing about an Israeli offensive that would change the face of the Middle East and perhaps seal the fate of the Jewish state for the coming generations," he wrote.
Members of the inner cabinet swiftly tried to put a lid on conjecture. The intelligence affairs minister and deputy prime minister, Dan Meridor, said the issue should not be a matter of public debate. "A public debate about this is nothing less than a scandal … The public elected a government to make decisions about things like this in secret. The public's right to know does not include the debate about classified matters like this," he said.
Israel test-fired a "rocket propulsion system" capable of striking Iran on Wednesday, adding to speculation over its intentions regarding military action. However, defence officials said the exercise had been planned for a long time.
With the next White House election 13 months away, an Israeli attack on Iran is Obama's nightmare. It would be hard for a president to sell another conflict to a war-weary American public on top of Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya.
There might be a temporary rallying round the flag but Obama would lose the Democratic left, the base he needs to get out and campaign for him.
That would be problematic for a president facing a tight election. But there is an even bigger problem: the impact of rising oil prices – an almost certain consequence of conflict – on the faltering US recovery.
Karim Sadjadpour, one of the leading analysts in the US on relations with Iran, based at the Washington-based Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, is sceptical about the chances of war with Iran.
"A US military attack on Iran is not going to happen during Obama's presidency. If you're Obama, and your priority is to resuscitate the American economy and decrease the US footprint in the Middle East, bombing Iran would defeat those two objectives. Oil prices would skyrocket."
Larry Sabato, a widely-respected political analyst and professor of politics at the University of Virginia, shared the scepticism, though he noted that Obama was more bellicose than people had expected. "He has not been hesistant to use force. And that has surprised not just the left but people round the world. I am not sure he would get the Nobel peace prize now. Just as well he got it early," he said.
If there was to be a conflict, it would be better late next year, close to the election, rather than during the remainder of this year or early next. "We always talk about October surprises and we would have people rallying round the flag if there was sufficient justification. October means the election would be held before the US becomes mired down in conflict or faces a boomerang effect," Sabato said.
Israel is not alone in talking about military action against Iran. Among the state department documents disclosed by WikiLeaks was one in Saudi Arabia called for action to chop what it called "the head of the snake".
The attitude of the Obama adminstration towards Iran is well illustrated by the episode in which allegations surfaced of an Iranian plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to Washington with the help of a Mexican drug cartel.
If the US was finally bowing to pressure from not just Israel but Saudi Arabia, the alleged Iranian plot would have been a useful casus belli or at least the start of a softening up process in preparation for war.
Instead, Obama administration staff briefed privately almost immediately that a military response was not being contemplated, not even sending more naval vessels to the Gulf or announcing new military manoeuvres in the region.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/02/us-heading-war-iran-obama
Is the US heading for war with Iran?
With an election coming and the economy struggling, conflict may not appeal to Obama, but the drumbeat is getting louder
Ewen MacAskill in Washington and Harriet Sherwood in Jerusalem
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 2 November 2011 17.52 GMT
War with Iran is the last thing Barack Obama needs with the American economy in dire trouble and a tough White House election campaign looming next year, according to officials in Washington as well as political analysts.
But while the Obama administration is desperate to avoid another conflict – it would be America's fourth in a decade – the drumbeat from Israel has been growing louder.
The Israeli cabinet was reported on Wednesday to be debating whether to launch air strikes on Iranian nuclear sites in the coming weeks. The prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, and the defence minister, Ehud Barak, are lobbying in favour of action, but other senior ministers are urging caution.
In response, Iran has warned, as it has in the past, that any attack by Israel would result in retaliation against the US. The Iranian news agency ISNA quoted Hassan Firouzabadi, Iran's military chief, as saying: "The Zionist regime's military attack against Iran will inflict heavy damages to the US as well as the Zionist regime."
The rhetoric from Tel Aviv and Tehran is making some within the Obama administration nervous.
A Washington official familiar with the issue acknowledged the temperature has been rising and that Israel introduced an unpredictable element. He reiterated, however, that the policy of the Obama administration was to pursue all diplomatic channels, backed by tougher sanctions, and avoid military action.
"I do not think the US has the stomach for it," Sam Gardiner, a retired air force colonel who taught strategy at the National War College and who has specialised in carrying out war games targeting Iran, said. But if Israel went ahead, it would be difficult for the US to stay out. "The US would have to be involved and finish it," he said.
A congressional hearing on Iran last week was told that the Pentagon has a series of contingency plans for military action, ranging from all-out war to limited operations. Obama had signed off on these, the hearing was told.
Retired general Jack Keane was hawkish, urging escalation. "We've got to put our hand around their throat now," he said. The hearing was told options included increased covert action, more cyberwarfare and sanctions that would target the Iranian central bank, a serious move that Iran might regard as tantamount to a declaration of war.
But Keane and other military colleagues giving evidence on Capitol Hill all stopped short of advocating an air strike against Iran. That has been line for years from the Pentagon, which sees all-out war against Iran as the worst of options.
The issue of a possible military attack on Iran was reignited in Israel by influential columnist Nahum Barnea last Friday. "Rumours are increasing about an Israeli offensive that would change the face of the Middle East and perhaps seal the fate of the Jewish state for the coming generations," he wrote.
Members of the inner cabinet swiftly tried to put a lid on conjecture. The intelligence affairs minister and deputy prime minister, Dan Meridor, said the issue should not be a matter of public debate. "A public debate about this is nothing less than a scandal … The public elected a government to make decisions about things like this in secret. The public's right to know does not include the debate about classified matters like this," he said.
Israel test-fired a "rocket propulsion system" capable of striking Iran on Wednesday, adding to speculation over its intentions regarding military action. However, defence officials said the exercise had been planned for a long time.
With the next White House election 13 months away, an Israeli attack on Iran is Obama's nightmare. It would be hard for a president to sell another conflict to a war-weary American public on top of Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya.
There might be a temporary rallying round the flag but Obama would lose the Democratic left, the base he needs to get out and campaign for him.
That would be problematic for a president facing a tight election. But there is an even bigger problem: the impact of rising oil prices – an almost certain consequence of conflict – on the faltering US recovery.
Karim Sadjadpour, one of the leading analysts in the US on relations with Iran, based at the Washington-based Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, is sceptical about the chances of war with Iran.
"A US military attack on Iran is not going to happen during Obama's presidency. If you're Obama, and your priority is to resuscitate the American economy and decrease the US footprint in the Middle East, bombing Iran would defeat those two objectives. Oil prices would skyrocket."
Larry Sabato, a widely-respected political analyst and professor of politics at the University of Virginia, shared the scepticism, though he noted that Obama was more bellicose than people had expected. "He has not been hesistant to use force. And that has surprised not just the left but people round the world. I am not sure he would get the Nobel peace prize now. Just as well he got it early," he said.
If there was to be a conflict, it would be better late next year, close to the election, rather than during the remainder of this year or early next. "We always talk about October surprises and we would have people rallying round the flag if there was sufficient justification. October means the election would be held before the US becomes mired down in conflict or faces a boomerang effect," Sabato said.
Israel is not alone in talking about military action against Iran. Among the state department documents disclosed by WikiLeaks was one in Saudi Arabia called for action to chop what it called "the head of the snake".
The attitude of the Obama adminstration towards Iran is well illustrated by the episode in which allegations surfaced of an Iranian plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to Washington with the help of a Mexican drug cartel.
If the US was finally bowing to pressure from not just Israel but Saudi Arabia, the alleged Iranian plot would have been a useful casus belli or at least the start of a softening up process in preparation for war.
Instead, Obama administration staff briefed privately almost immediately that a military response was not being contemplated, not even sending more naval vessels to the Gulf or announcing new military manoeuvres in the region.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/02/us-heading-war-iran-obama
- Jun 22, 2009
- 4,991
- 1
- 0
The next few days should prove very interesting. God knows what will happen to sort this mess out.
Greek referendum: Papandreou losing MPs' support
3 November 2011 Last updated at 11:33 GMT
Greek PM George Papandreou appears to be heading for defeat in a confidence vote after growing opposition within his own party to a surprise referendum call on the EU bailout plan.
Mr Papandreou's Pasok party holds a slim majority, 152 out of 300 seats.
The Greek cabinet is now meeting in emergency session.
The row threatened to overshadow a meeting of the G20 in Cannes, where leading industrialised nations are to discuss the eurozone debt crisis.
Mr Papandreou's chief of staff said on Thursday the prime minister had not and would not resign, the Reuters news agency says.
Several government ministers have criticised the idea of a referendum.
On Monday, Mr Papandreou shocked European leaders and financial markets by calling a vote on the eurozone bailout plan.
A spokesperson for the European Commission told reporters in Brussels that Greece would have to leave the EU if it left the euro.
"The treaty doesn't foresee an exit from the eurozone without exiting the EU," a Commission spokeswoman said.
Austerity
Early on Thursday, Finance Minister Evangelos Venizelos spoke out publicly against the idea of a referendum. He is a longtime rival to Mr Papandreou and a former Pasok leadership candidate.
Mr Venizelos was followed by the deputy finance minister, the health minister and the development minister, says the BBC's Mark Lowen, in Athens.
In a statement early on Thursday, Mr Venizelos said Greece's membership of the euro could not be put in doubt.
"If we want to protect the country we must, under conditions of national unity and political seriousness and consensus, implement without any delay the decision of 26 October. Now, as soon as possible," Mr Venizelos said.
Eurozone leaders had hoped to present a definitive action plan for Greece, including a move by wealthy emerging economies such as China to contribute to expanding the European Financial Stability Fund (EFSF).
On 26 October, eurozone countries agreed to give Greece a second bailout of 130bn euros (£111bn; $178bn). Private banks would also write off 50% of the Greek state debts they hold.
In return, Greece must enact austerity measures, cutting wages and salaries, and making thousands of civil servants redundant.
Mr Papandreou plans to put the bailout to a popular vote on 4 or 5 December. However, our correspondent says the idea of a referendum is now in doubt, as the collapse of the government would trigger early elections.
Several Pasok MPs have called instead for a parliamentary vote on whether to accept the bailout terms, a government of national unity or early elections.
Another has called on Mr Papandreou to resign.
The EU says it will not disburse rescue funds until after the referendum.
Our correspondent says Mr Venizelos' statement exposes a rift at the very heart of the Greek government.
One of Mr Venizelos' advisers told the BBC the minister did not approve of the referendum and does not consider it a priority.
On Wednesday, Mr Papandreou said that his shock decision to call a national vote on the bailout package was effectively a decision on the country remaining part of the euro bloc.
Mr Venizelos travelled to Cannes on Wednesday for meetings at the G20 summit of leading industrialised countries.
He issued his statement upon his return to Athens at 04:45 local time (06:45 BST).
Greece was due to receive the next tranche of funds from its first bailout later this month. However, the EU has said it will not transfer the 8bn euros (£6.88bn; $10.9bn) until after the referendum.
As a result, Greece may confront difficulties paying pensions and salaries.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-15568915
Greek referendum: Papandreou losing MPs' support
3 November 2011 Last updated at 11:33 GMT
Greek PM George Papandreou appears to be heading for defeat in a confidence vote after growing opposition within his own party to a surprise referendum call on the EU bailout plan.
Mr Papandreou's Pasok party holds a slim majority, 152 out of 300 seats.
The Greek cabinet is now meeting in emergency session.
The row threatened to overshadow a meeting of the G20 in Cannes, where leading industrialised nations are to discuss the eurozone debt crisis.
Mr Papandreou's chief of staff said on Thursday the prime minister had not and would not resign, the Reuters news agency says.
Several government ministers have criticised the idea of a referendum.
On Monday, Mr Papandreou shocked European leaders and financial markets by calling a vote on the eurozone bailout plan.
A spokesperson for the European Commission told reporters in Brussels that Greece would have to leave the EU if it left the euro.
"The treaty doesn't foresee an exit from the eurozone without exiting the EU," a Commission spokeswoman said.
Austerity
Early on Thursday, Finance Minister Evangelos Venizelos spoke out publicly against the idea of a referendum. He is a longtime rival to Mr Papandreou and a former Pasok leadership candidate.
Mr Venizelos was followed by the deputy finance minister, the health minister and the development minister, says the BBC's Mark Lowen, in Athens.
In a statement early on Thursday, Mr Venizelos said Greece's membership of the euro could not be put in doubt.
"If we want to protect the country we must, under conditions of national unity and political seriousness and consensus, implement without any delay the decision of 26 October. Now, as soon as possible," Mr Venizelos said.
Eurozone leaders had hoped to present a definitive action plan for Greece, including a move by wealthy emerging economies such as China to contribute to expanding the European Financial Stability Fund (EFSF).
On 26 October, eurozone countries agreed to give Greece a second bailout of 130bn euros (£111bn; $178bn). Private banks would also write off 50% of the Greek state debts they hold.
In return, Greece must enact austerity measures, cutting wages and salaries, and making thousands of civil servants redundant.
Mr Papandreou plans to put the bailout to a popular vote on 4 or 5 December. However, our correspondent says the idea of a referendum is now in doubt, as the collapse of the government would trigger early elections.
Several Pasok MPs have called instead for a parliamentary vote on whether to accept the bailout terms, a government of national unity or early elections.
Another has called on Mr Papandreou to resign.
The EU says it will not disburse rescue funds until after the referendum.
Our correspondent says Mr Venizelos' statement exposes a rift at the very heart of the Greek government.
One of Mr Venizelos' advisers told the BBC the minister did not approve of the referendum and does not consider it a priority.
On Wednesday, Mr Papandreou said that his shock decision to call a national vote on the bailout package was effectively a decision on the country remaining part of the euro bloc.
Mr Venizelos travelled to Cannes on Wednesday for meetings at the G20 summit of leading industrialised countries.
He issued his statement upon his return to Athens at 04:45 local time (06:45 BST).
Greece was due to receive the next tranche of funds from its first bailout later this month. However, the EU has said it will not transfer the 8bn euros (£6.88bn; $10.9bn) until after the referendum.
As a result, Greece may confront difficulties paying pensions and salaries.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-15568915
Zizek is a fantastic thinker (one of the best) but the fact that he's a full on Marxist / Communist means his views will never be acted upon or influence a vast majority of people.
He said it in Hardtalk (BBC), I think, and also stated that the system has to be changed back to a communist form after the failure.
I can't find the video but I am sure he said this.
He said it in Hardtalk (BBC), I think, and also stated that the system has to be changed back to a communist form after the failure.
I can't find the video but I am sure he said this.
- Mar 10, 2009
- 7,268
- 1
- 0
ramjambunath said:
I thought he was a trained psychoanalyst, and the little I read (I feel I never have time to really and thoroughly read his books; whereas he reads 5 books at a time, to satisfy his curiosity) it appears he uses Marxism as a prism to understand "being" or social reality. The wonderful thing about him is that, as opposed to many philosopher/social scientists, he can and does apply his thinking to almost ordinary and daily events. He is a practitioner, as opposed to a theoretician only. I think his books are a little more difficult to grasp because he often uses philosophical concepts that have emerged within longstanding traditions, and have very specific meanings.
I also thought he criticizes post-modern philosophy, some of which deconstructs (as in the philosophical deconstruction, not the way its loosely used in the media nowadays) reality so as to demonstrate the impossibility of the absolute (i.e. as in an ideology). He, what I gathered, is actually looking for a new absolute tha forms the basis of our reality.
But I am not very well versed in his writings, so correct me if I am wrong.
Bala Verde said:
He is a Lacanic philosopher and he's a political thinker and he critcises modern philosophy. He speaks about politics a lot, he writes a lot about modern philosophy and from what I've seen (very small amount) also draws parallels to the system from that. I'm not very well versed with his writings as well but I have seen quite a few speeches of his. As a speaker he can be a bit eccentric, but that comes with that level of intelligence. It's always worth listening to him, even if one completely disagrees with him.
The system changed to be back to Communism thing was said in Frontline, a leftist magazine here in India.
Edit: The fact that he speaks more about politics may just be the fact that he's asked more political questions by journalists. His seminars are a bit of everything.
- Jul 4, 2009
- 9,666
- 0
- 0
ramjambunath said:
....you might find Israel Shamir's article on Zizek interesting....and certainly very very controversial...
http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/07/14/zizek-and-the-gaza-flotilla/
Cheers
blutto
- May 13, 2009
- 3,093
- 3
- 0
rhubroma said:
The (neoliberal) dogma throughout the last two decades was (and I have written a bit about it here before): capitalism is the catalyst to bring about democracy.
What the last two decades have taught us is that the dogma is, in fact, wrong. In the case of China, we see a country with consistently much higher growth rates than 'the West', achieved within an authoritarian, mercantilistic system with no prospect of change.
On the other hand, the Arab revolutions teach us that it was not the benevolent effects of capitalism which ignited the masses, rather, it was the mounting inequalities, the excesses of an unfettered, unconstrained, corrupt capitalism, which swept despots like Mubarak, Gaddhafi etc. from power. In an ironic twist, you therefore may say that capitalism was one of causes of the Arab revolution, but it certainly wasn't in the sense neoliberals were promoting it in the 1990s.
What we have learned, therefore, is that capitalism and democracy, can be divorced. This is a very dangerous thought; the power elites in the West are trembling. It is Marx's specter haunting Europe again. Except this time, it is a international, global phenomenon.
- Mar 10, 2009
- 7,268
- 1
- 0
Cobblestones said:
Sounds very Derridean
On a less foundational level, this just in, (no surprise here):
Thirty companies paid no income tax 2008-2010: report
and then an equally expensive boondoggle (
, which appears to favor favor 'homeowners' over renters, and owners of multiple homes over owners of one home?)
If one thing should be eliminated is the mortgage interest deduction.
- Jun 22, 2009
- 4,991
- 1
- 0
Jesus wept, he was just kidding.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/blog/2011/nov/03/greek-crisis-referendum-eurozone
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/blog/2011/nov/03/greek-crisis-referendum-eurozone
Bala Verde said:
I completely agree.
Particularly since mortgages interest on loans over $1,000,000 can't be deducted. We need to broaden the tax base in the middle class. Regressive taxation. It makes sense.
But seriously, if there were an elimination of deductions with a low tax rate, low corporate tax... imo this is the best way forward.
- Sep 10, 2009
- 5,663
- 0
- 0
What was that again about capital punishment having the necessary checks and balances?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/radley-balko/hank-skinner-texas-death-row_b_1072707.html
eh, it's Texas, we'll just kill him anyway.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/radley-balko/hank-skinner-texas-death-row_b_1072707.html
blutto said:
Thanks blutto, it's 90% well written before becoming a right rant in the end. I don't agree with all that Slavoj Zizek says and in this case he was definitely way out of line. The comments about him wanting to defect to the right come mainly because he is the 'hollywood star' philosopher. He is very much a far left wing man and if he did rule a state, it would be chaos but he always makes some pertinent points.
- May 13, 2009
- 3,093
- 3
- 0
He (and I) lifted it from the communist manifesto. Its opening line.Bala Verde said:
Anyway, back to Greece.
A few pages ago, I asked the question: referendum: triumph of democracy or failure of political leadership? It seems the question is obsolete: the market has spoken, established its leadership, political leaders and democracy are in retreat. Democracy and capitalism are having a divorce. With ugly and nasty results.
- Jul 4, 2009
- 9,666
- 0
- 0
ramjambunath said:
...the guy is definitely interesting....provocative would also be another way to describe him...and yes there is that part of him that would be fatal if he ever ran a state...and while that article gobsmacked me it didn't surprise me as much as I thought it would....all in all a bit of a quandry that man is...would really love to like him but something is off...
Cheers
blutto
Cobblestones said:
The govt is still precariously placed and can easily lose a no confidence motion when allow a bill (resolution) so contentious. If the people of Greece are against the bill, it should fail. Govts before have taken a stance similar by saying that the people can make mistakes sometimes (missile defence in Czech Republic) and haven't come out of it well.
What Greece would do to become an Iceland at the moment.
blutto said:
He's definitely provocative, not least because of his lifestyle. The fact is disregarding the nonsense that he speaks, he's quite brilliant to listen to and even learn from. Even in the article there is the point about Bernie Madoff just taking advantage of a system, which while controversial is definitely a serious concern.
One of his lectures, I like this a lot (40 min video)-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GD69Cc20rw
It's about being a revolutionary today and the shortfalls of capitalism and how to put forward socialism in the modern world. Again, I don't agree with everything but there are some valid points.
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 36K
-
Teams & Riders Tadej Pogačar discussion thread- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 41K
-
Teams & Riders The Great Big Cycling Transfers, Extensions, and Rumours Thread- Started by RedheadDane
- Replies: 13K
-
-
-
Teams & Riders Everybody needs a little bit of Roglstomp in their lives- Started by johnymax
- Replies: 23K
-
Teams & Riders Jonas Vingegaard thread: Love in Iberia- Started by Samu Cuenca
- Replies: 10K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram