The Mirror today published a guest article by Hans-Peter courtyard to the Greek crisis. As ridiculous as this sounds, but this whole article is actually little more than repeating the liberal mantra of "incompetent per se" state and "capable" and "fair" market. So is just the kind of text, without comment, I simply do not leave the room.
The title is gravely
Quote:
gambling is just
The economic law of the jungle will be right at the start times just turned on its head. As one can indeed schonmal be prepared for all sorts of nonsense.
Quote:
The Greek government has wasted money for decades - yet are suddenly speculators are to blame for the crisis in the country. A gross miscalculation. Who would now prohibit the speculation, the eyes to economic truths.
"Inconvenient Truths" seems currently the most a household word for neo-liberal and social Darwinist tirades to be, after all, was the appropriate side of it otherwise, particularly in relation to the verbal effusions Guido Westerwelle one or Thilo Sarrazin said. That the Greek government has wasted money, is one of the multiple (!) Causes of the current situation. Just speculation but said one of the causes, and not to the low.
Quote:
The abuse of the speculators is a national sport. Why is that? Because they earn too much, and this with the misfortune of others? Maybe.
What do you mean maybe? To enrich themselves at the misfortune of others is highly unethical, which may qualify it as you want, it does not become a good deed.
Quote:
But others deserve a lot of money: The ever-popular talent shows are, for example, a huge business that is built on the suffering and humiliation of others.
How fitting. The typical "critics of capitalism" has certainly no large pieces on said television shows. This argument is therefore none.
Quote:
What is so special about the speculators? In the eyes of the good citizens they are unpatriotic. Frequently - and not just by chance - they are strangers in their respective societies.
Interesting idea, critics on speculation just a little xenophobia and nationalism - but only hinted at - to insinuate. Interesting but is no less untenable.
Quote:
you try to see the world as it is and not as we would like. This is the foundation of their business: they reveal through their actions in the markets the veil of convention, public morality and ideology, the reality with which we cover you.
So all live out of the speculators in a kind of dream world? Conventions of which the author speaks to what public morality? And especially: What ideology does he mean that there is to conceal "the truth" (tm)? The only prevalent but is really just the neo-liberals, the right of the stronger feudalism and glorified as almost divine blessing.
Quote:
why we hate them even more, the uglier the face of this reality. Every time a thunderstorm comes down on the speculators, if a society does not want to be robbed of their lives lies.
It is not like that I would deny that a majority of people do nowadays in a pure world of illusion. Only in particular the modern business world, including the just speculation, a purely virtual illusion, an abstract construct that only by believing in the existence of which can exist in the first place. But as I have already mentioned: the author turned the whole situation abruptly reversed, and the jugglers and conjurers in their financial dream world then suddenly the only ones who could show us the real truth ...
Quote:
It also speculate we normal citizens. We play the lottery, by the way, in contrast to speculation in the capital market without any positive side-effect. And sometimes we try to get used to the stock market. One or the other has become a sideline for the daytrader.
This is the only point on which I must give the author far right: the hypocrisy of some people is truly enormous.
Quote:
markets are not a monarchy, but democratically
No, markets are themselves first anarchist, and later built up mostly feudal.
Quote:
A particularly hated speculator is the short sellers. He sells what he has not because he is betting that it is worth less later. For companies whose shares he sold short, this is an insult. The same is true for countries whose bonds he deals with. The reason is clear - because of the short sale makes one thing clear: There are people who find what does a company or a state, not so much the bet even money that it goes wrong.
Objectively, the time has come correctly, also in terms of the popularity of "short sellers" (they are not sure as a separate group). The point of the offense is absurd: A company is not a person with feelings, but an abstract, emotionless entity that operates under more or less rational aspects. A company can offend as well as a stone or a mathematical formula can not.
Quote:
The short sale is a kind of treason.
As already said: The idea of an "offended Company" is absurd.
Quote:
But is that bad? Functioning markets are now times not a monarchy, but democratic. Everyone can think what he wants and he can act accordingly. Finally, each carrying the risk of his action itself is also the speculator.
false True, false, true. A staccato of inconsistencies. Markets are in fact not a monarchy, as I said already, but not democratic. Again, the freedom of action essential element of a market. It is also an essential feature of democracy, but to infer from the fact that markets are more democratic, is an extremely gross logical error, because we speak of a necessary but not sufficient condition. Finally, the biggest joke: The speculators would risk self-supporting. This is in the majority of cases simply wrong, for usually it is speculated with the money from other people, and only rarely with their own. The billions that are there are not pushed around, the speculators themselves, they lost, they paint containing not only the added bonus a year-end. Personal risk is different.
Quote:
No wonder that European governments want to ban speculation.
prohibit speculation? Pavlov again, "regulate financial markets a little" becomes "the state wants to ban anything." Regardless of whether such a drastic step would be meaningful or not - From politicians, which is not even being considered tentative, and the option is not even as a purely hypothetical in the room, but the author nevertheless evoked a threatening danger.
Quote: Citizens
for us is not a good sign. It means that there is still a lot of shortcomings remain, and that the politicians the truth, tell the markets you want to listen in any case. The speculator has to shut up, so we are worried about anything.
The author makes it truly is the mantra. Nor as "the invisible hand of the market" something may make to speak of market speculators or some form of profound or for policy inconvenient truth.
Quote:
the speculators would follow this law of silence, could the policy for time. But it is dissolved no problems. On the contrary: There is a danger that governments see no need to take before the next election date required, usually inconvenient measures.
Note: Uncomfortable measures are well known in neo-liberalism always affect the lower and middle social strata to be uncomfortable. Meant here is therefore definitely not "inconvenient for the speculators", but "inconvenient for everyone else, just not us." If the speculators now "silent", but rather (Whatever) "talk", would be a logical and sensible policy but acting just grab them inconvenient measures. That will not happen, should be clear. Unclear to me personally only if the author is well aware, and only tried a few facts to the detriment of his critics completely transfigured profession "speculator" to twist, or whether he had written himself really believes.
