It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Can women fix "it"?

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 18 2009 @ 07:52 PM
link   
In 1979, Margaret Thatcher showed the world how a woman would 'fix it'. Britain was experiencing the steep inflation of the 1970’s, the growing power of the unions, political and social instability, national debt, rising crime and unemployment, the three day week and falling hem-lines, all causes and affects of the post 60’s recession. The Thatcher campaign promised that she would run the nation like a frugal housewife, taking care with the ‘family’s budget’, spending and investing it wisely, and she won her mandate.

Thatcher’s economic gurus, Alan Walters and Milton Friedman, were men. Walters helped shape Mrs Thatcher’s decision to politically gamble with the 1981 Budget, which overturned Keynesian fiscal policy by raising taxes in the middle of a severe recession. Walters argued that Britain should keep to strict monetary targets and that policymakers would have to keep a much stricter control on the total amount of money circulating in the economy if they wanted to curb inflation.

Friedman also challenged Keynesian thought and introduced the economic theory, Monetarism. This argued that a strong economy needed to establish a ‘natural rate’ of unemployment; 10% economic policy, for an economy to grow, it was necessary to maintain an underclass of non economically active individuals. Incidently, these individuals were then vilified in the MSM as being a drain on resources and a threat to the fabric of society.

Thatcher was not the only world leader to adopt monetarism. Friedman’s views of monetary policy, taxation, privatisation and deregulation informed the policy of governments around the globe, including America, Canada, New Zealand, Iceland, Chile. It was here, during the Pinochet era that monetarist economic policy was most firmly implemented.

During the 1980’s, Thatcher deregulated the UK money markets (including Hong Kong, then a British protectorate) and the world saw the birth of the ‘yuppie’, with the freedom cry of ‘greed is good’. Thatcher claimed there was no such thing as society and that each must take individual responsibility for those less fortunate; Thatcher’s trickle down theory. It was during this period that the gambling functions of banks and money markets were able to grow their greed to the extent we have recently seen with the hyper rewards for conjuring money on a whim and a promise.

In 2002, Thatcher was asked what was her greatest achievement. She replied, "Tony Blair and New Labour. We forced our opponents to change their minds (about socialism)." New Labour attempted to introduce the globalisation theories of one of Tony Blair’s guru’s, Anthony Giddens. This theory is a hybrid of the socialist values of old Labour and Thatcher’s free market economy monetarism.

So in response to the OP, ‘Can women ‘fix it?’, not by setting up small banks that can make no decision until every question has been asked. And not by joining the system as it currently is and attempting to change or subvert it from within.

However, women and men can choose to use small banks like the one in the BBC article, set up local credit unions, take a more responsible approach to personal debt and stop trusting the big banks with their hard earned cash.





[edit on 18/5/2009 by teapot]




posted on May, 18 2009 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by On the level
 


Ahh someone said it,i thought this was pretty sexist thread and some of the replies seemed like they are coming from the uber radical feminist types that really annoy me.Equality? great yeah,totally agree.But you never hear the end of it EVER.I have a friend like this...grinds my gears



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 12:53 AM
link   
Well...I certainly hope not, or it will make us guys look like bafoons!

I wouldn't be surprised though, my girlfriend always seems to beat me in Monopoly!

[edit on 19-5-2009 by Pokémon]



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 01:23 AM
link   
i'm female. and here's what i think about managing the economy (lol!)

jubilee. every 49 years, everyone is forgiven their debts


read it and weep

"clean slate" decrees were intended to redress the tendency of debtors, in ancient societies, to become hopelessly in debt to their creditors, thus accumulating most of the arable land into the control of a wealthy few.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 01:30 AM
link   
The banks took huge risks without the capital if things went south = overleveraged.

Things went south.

The regulator of banks, the Fed, stopped enforcing the black letter law regulations which prohibit banks operating undercapitalized, overleveraged.

They failed to step in and liquidate these businesses as they are required to do by the law.

Instead, they rorted, fleeced, stole, purloined, defrauded, shaved, cup-and-ball-tricked TRILLIONS of dollars off the US taxpayer and bought equity in these collapsing businesses, in this way giving them the leverage ratios to continue.


What part of this was men's fault?

What part of this was women's fault?


They're the wrong questions to ask, sorry.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 03:55 AM
link   
reply to post by andy1033
 


what does intuition have to do with risk management? Is that the same as the male traders who followed their hunter/warrior "gut instinct" and got us into this mess.

Intuition is not even mentioned here - or as part of the study. It's about attitude to risk - effectively not making decisions on intuition.

Women are less likely to take risks and will seek to understand the facts in any decision rather than the feel.


Dae

posted on May, 19 2009 @ 04:00 AM
link   
OK I’m going to throw it out on a limb now. Most people in this thread reckon, "No, women can’t fix it.”

So I ask, why the hell haven’t men fixed it already? My disappointment in men stems for this one reason and no other. Heck Ill pass the porn industry, slavery and anything else but not this. The banking industry is a SCAM and its pure evil in its premise - why haven’t men fixed it yet - they have had 300years! How many men have we sent away to be educated only to have them tow the party line, "It's all good mum".

Let me put it this way. Ignore Aliens, Illuminate, karma etc and what have we got - an evil banking system that if changed would solve so many problems that it’s unbelievable! And yet it appears that men like it this way or they are too scared to change it? Men are working harder and longer hours than ever before - what good is that!? We need men to have more time to tinker in their sheds and invent the next revolutionised leap for society, more time to spend with their family and pass on solid values to their children, more time to enjoy their lives than living it in some office for 50hrs a week!

So yeah it is highly possible that this situation may need women asking, "Why, oh why are we doing it this way... its insane!?"

The banking industry relies on risk taking - we need to be more risk aware.

I want to end this post by giving all you men out there a big hug, I don't hate you all, in fact I love you all. And I reckon we can change things together as we have always done!



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 05:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dae

So I ask, why the hell haven’t men fixed it already? The banking industry is a SCAM and its pure evil in its premise - why haven’t men fixed it yet - they have had 300years!


The current Western banking systems are only about 25 years old and are the result of deregulation.



Let me put it this way. Ignore Aliens, Illuminate, karma etc and what have we got - an evil banking system that if changed would solve so many problems that it’s unbelievable! And yet it appears that men like it this way or they are too scared to change it? Men are working harder and longer hours than ever before - what good is that!? We need men to have more time to tinker in their sheds and invent the next revolutionised leap for society, more time to spend with their family and pass on solid values to their children, more time to enjoy their lives than living it in some office for 50hrs a week!


Not all men are bankers!!!!!



So yeah it is highly possible that this situation may need women asking, "Why, oh why are we doing it this way... its insane!?"


Should women storm the banks and effect a mass takeover, installing institutional and cultural change within the banking system? Of course not! Any such action would be deemed criminal.

Change will not happen overnight, the current downturn is more likely than not to develop into a major recession, even a depression that leads directly to war, as has happened in the past. It does not matter how many questions are asked, the Elites who own the banks (in the main, men with the 'right' blood ties and educations), care not for questions. If these, Bilderbergs et al, have not permitted changing government and ideology to alter their working practices, it is illogical to believe they may do so just because a bunch of women keep asking questions.

The only way to disempower the large banks who run/own the banking systems, is for the ordinary Joe to stop using them! I personally have not had a bank account for about four years now and I manage ok! I don't borrow money, I don't pay bank charges and my movements cannot be tracked by my spending habits.

I shall continue to enjoy this freedom for as long as possible because I think that within the next decade, money/currency will have been outlawed, globally. The banking elites will have fashioned a system of credit exchange that the masses will buy into because it will be based upon hybrid capitalist and socialist values of need as well as wealth creation.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 05:53 AM
link   
Typical feminist post. Present an idea that does not involve males which encourages support from other females and less support from males. Then everyone starts arguing and it turns into a gender issue. Meanwhile you will play the innocent bystander that is only "suggesting something different." More brownie points for your feminist agenda. Nicely done.

On a serious note, I agree that a change of some sort needs to be made. And the ideas you talk about of an "independent", "non-profit" body are good. However, while many positive qualities of women in general are good for somebody in that position, other attributes might work against them. I.E. Perhaps being too emotional and not rational enough when assessing certain policies.

On the whole though, a change is definitely needed and if these two women can improve things for the average Joe and Josephine - and Joe-in-between - then I am all for it
.

[edit on 19/5/2009 by Dark Ghost]


Dae

posted on May, 19 2009 @ 06:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Dark Ghost
 


I starred your post. I want to quickly say ('cos I have to dash out), the first paragraph leaves me shaking me head feeling a bit let down that you stick a label and an agenda on me - I have always been 100% against the banks - males I have not - feel free to check my other posts out).

Saying that I like the rest of your post and I agree entirely



[if I was gonna pick a label for me I go more discordian/lawful good/albino eyelash collector
]



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 06:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Dark Ghost
 


typical male post.

i'm sorry but you left that wide open


Dae

posted on May, 19 2009 @ 06:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by teapot

The current Western banking systems are only about 25 years old and are the result of deregulation.


I believe, and correct me if I am wrong, the modern banking system is over 300 years old.

BoE website

The Bank of England was founded in 1694 to act as the Government's banker and debt-manager.


Gotta dash



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 06:43 AM
link   
i use to be in charge of our household finances.
we had no debt. i bought everything from second hand stores, clipped coupons
and cut more corners than most could even imagine.
but we had nothing. no home to call our own. our vehicle was quite old and as a result, constantly needing repairs. we had no credit as we didn't have credit cards nor a line of credit. we spent what we earned on maintaining the standard lifestyle, so we also had no life savings, no retirement fund, and nothing to fall back on should problems arise.

then, hubby took over the finances. soon, we had excellent credit, a nice vehicle that rarely needed repair (mostly normal maintenance) and a home to call our own. we also ended up with several credit cards. well you know the rest of that story.

so my thoughts are that moderation between the two approaches (his and mine) is the best option.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 06:47 AM
link   
I think it they put five or more women on the board of directors and each baked a nice desert for each meeting it couldn't hurt! :-> (just joking)



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 06:51 AM
link   
reply to post by ReelView
 


okay, if the men promise to carry the ladies purses into the building, no problemo.


afterall, their arms would be full of cooking supplies.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 07:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Dae
 


You just said everything I wish I would have said. I am in total agreement with every statement you made. If any of my previous statements offended anyone, I sincerely apologize.

I wish we could all recognize and appreciate our similarities and differences in a respectful manner. I fail at times and fail miserably.

Earlier I posted a condensed version of the known history of early civilization and the fact that men and women of that time worshipped the female attributes of nature. It worked for thousands of years before the aggressive warrior tribes invaded the continent of Asia, eventually spreading across the globe.

We are in unprecedented times. Our combined creativity and willingness to make life worth living is needed now more than ever.

Again, I apologize for stepping on anyone's pride, ego or emotions. It was not what I started out trying to accomplish.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 10:06 AM
link   
the problem you ladies have is that you're over simplifying the issue, male/female attributes doesn't come close.

this risk taking nonsense is just such a non issue. the course of action with the least personal risk to the individual making the decision was to make risky investments.

those gambling on funny money investments were mostly gambling with other people's money, from their point of view the risk assessment was based on the likelihood of them getting a bonus or a promotion or whatever, not on them losing an investment. the fate of the investment long term was not important, what happened to that investment next 1/4 or next year was irrelevant, if you made a profit in 3 or 6 or 12 months, you got a bonus.

this led to people making risky investments to get short term gains in order to secure an immediate monitory reward. the biggest flaw in the system, the fatal flaw that led to the bubble, was that, to those making decisions, the risk was made an abstract idea, related but not directly attached to the decision.

the problem is not a male/female issue, it is about how we all measure success and the values we hold as important in an individual. if we value the hare over the tortoise we will alway, always, always get these sleep and snooze cycles, the idea isn't new.

[edit on 19/5/09 by pieman]



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 10:23 AM
link   
This is one of the most stupid questions I've seen discussed on the net. You guys act like women had nothing to do with any of tihs and were all out of the loop so to speak. It was both MEN and WOMEN i.e. human beings who were responsible for the banking mess. Women are no more or less fallible than men. To think otherwise is ignorant and blatantly sexist. In some ways women are more power hungry and much more materialistic than men. Greed is inherent in women as much as it is in men. Some of the most tyrannical positions in government have been held by women. Same thing with the corporate world. There have been terrible women leaders in every industry. If HR is any example of just how women run things well...........it should be a warning to us all.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dae

Originally posted by teapot

The current Western banking systems are only about 25 years old and are the result of deregulation.


I believe, and correct me if I am wrong, the modern banking system is over 300 years old.

BoE website

The Bank of England was founded in 1694 to act as the Government's banker and debt-manager.



Yes, and then in the 1980's the markets were deregulated, leading to the 'greed is good' mantra and the relaxing of the rules that prevented the sort of borrowing that lead to the sub prime crisis. Then, in 1997 New Labour made the bank independent, meaning that the Governer of the Bank of England and not the government, set base rate interest and can act independently when setting monetary policy.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Zosynspiracy
 


Agree with you mate, human beings caused the problem lets not get involved with the semantics of the thing. You put anyone in a position of power within a financial institution and all they will look for is profit, bonuses and ways to screw the populous out of their hard earned wages, as simple as that. And to the Margaret Thatcher poster, she single handily demolished the unions and the coal and steel industry, putting whole cities out of work while in London the brokers drank champagne and coined it in, between the economy, the industries she destroyed and the Falklands war she has already secured her place in the 7th Level of hell



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join