A little help...

[Hammer_Sickle_Revolution]

I recently got a message on a different forum, and my knowledge of economics is nowhere near as good as my knowledge on history:


People are saying Marx was right because of the financial crash. He could not have been more wrong. This crisis is a result of market interventionism by Government's and central banks, who were given a free rein with fiat money after the destruction of the Gold Standard. We need to abolish central banks and fiat money, return to the Gold Standard, and establish true free market banking and free market money. Sweden is a perfect example of this in the 19th century, when it enjoyed a long period of prosperity before the establishment of a central bank and the inevitable crash.

Any ideas on how to reply to this?

[Vincent]

I'm crap when it omes to economics, but I was under the impression that the recession is a result of too much de-regulation, and too much freedom for banks and private companies, and a culture of speculation etc... ?? To me this says the free-market is the problem, not Government intervention.

[F9]

Moved
I dont know how the financial crisis etc happened, but it seems your "friend" there just sees too many movies...I cant see a meaningful argument as i see the question in hand pretty "hypothetical" and with no basis.

Fuserg9:star:

[Sean]

I fail to see how the collapse of the markets was anything other than capitalist greed. Personally, I had been asked to get a mortgage on a house and kept putting it off because I could forsee this happening. I'm not gloating or pretending to have an economic sixth sense, I happened to watch the money program oon BBC2 a couple of years ago. It started by allowing people who dont have money to pretend to have lots of money and let them pay off expensive property so that banks could milk them for interest rather than the value of the property itself, at least in the uk. Even as an anarchist I can say that the problem was the lack of government intervention. Governments across the world let them run riot in what amounts to a fucking pyramid scheme, something that if you or I did we'd be thrown in jail for. Your friend has it arse for elbow, but I'm guessing you cant win this argument, people that spout that line are normally like concrete when it comes to ideology.

[scarletghoul]

This person sounds like some backwards Ron Paul kid. You dont need to know much about economics to argue with him, historical knowledge is enough. There are other historical example of unregulated capitalism goin crazy (great depression).

Also ask him if he's read any marx.

[#FF0000]

When someone talks about supporting the Gold Standard, you know that they have no idea what they are talking about. Just a rule of thumb.

[Cumannach]

I recently got a message on a different forum, and my knowledge of economics is nowhere near as good as my knowledge on history:



Any ideas on how to reply to this?


Maybe explain that fiat currencies and private bank monopolies cannot ultimately cause or solve capitalist crises. The crises are caused by the lack of planning inherent in private profiteering. Private capital migrates en masse to whatever industry or sector of industry seems to be the most profitable, until the point is reached at which that sector is so flooded that no more profit can be made out of all the capital invested in it, and the boom goes bust. Ultimately fiat currencies cannot fundamentally affect this basic process, and nor can financial monopolies. With a sound gold-backed currency and no intervention, exactly the same process occurs. Besides that, the rise of finance capital and central banks is an inevitable outcome of a simple free market in any case.

[Hammer_Sickle_Revolution]

Maybe explain that fiat currencies and private bank monopolies cannot ultimately cause or solve capitalist crises. The crises are caused by the lack of planning inherent in private profiteering. Private capital migrates en masse to whatever industry or sector of industry seems to be the most profitable, until the point is reached at which that sector is so flooded that no more profit can be made out of all the capital invested in it, and the boom goes bust. Ultimately fiat currencies cannot fundamentally affect this basic process, and nor can financial monopolies. With a sound gold-backed currency and no intervention, exactly the same process occurs. Besides that, the rise of finance capital and central banks is an inevitable outcome of a simple free market in any case.

Thanks to you all comrades, you are all very intelligent when it comes to economics. Now time for me to go and smash his argument.

[Niccolò Rossi]

I fail to see how the collapse of the markets was anything other than capitalist greed.

This is only because you through a real analysis of the crisis out the window in favour of populist bourgeois rhetoric.


Even as an anarchist I can say that the problem was the lack of government intervention. Governments across the world let them run riot in what amounts to a fucking pyramid scheme, something that if you or I did we'd be thrown in jail for.It's ironic don't you think that at times of crisis like these we have anarchists falling in line with the bourgeois state. Of course none of the above should come as a surprise to any marxist (or anarchist) for that matter who actually understands the role and function of the state. However, what's interesting is that even this understanding we find coincidentally dissolves away in these situations.

[mikelepore]

I recently got a message on a different forum ....

The writer of the quoted paragraph would have us believe that such a pervasive and devastating fact as five percent of the population owning ninety-five percent of the wealth will then have no negative repercussions and cause no crises. The writer would have us believe that such a lopsided situation can be considered normal, and that we should look elsewhere for the causes of our problems. That is nothing but an illusionist's trick. Capitalism, that is to say, the division of the population into the many who produce the wealth but don't own or control it, and the few who own and control the wealth but don't produce it, _IS_ the problem. No one needs to look any further.

[Dejavu]

I recently got a message on a different forum, and my knowledge of economics is nowhere near as good as my knowledge on history:



Any ideas on how to reply to this?

I think economics has a lot to do with history. It would not hurt you to explore the economic conditions in various historical contexts.

I see what this person is saying and I partially agree. However, Marx never postulated the conclusions he is suggesting. A gold standard was more stable than fiat , I find a counter argument not very sustainable by way of evidence and reason but there is no reason why it *must* be gold. Currency can be backed by any commodity of intrinsic value but gold is not the only option. If he truly upheld market values, then he'd let the market decide which currency would replace fiat and that may not be gold anymore.