posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 05:05 PM
The idea behind this philosophical idea was: There's ten families, and they each have ten cows. The joint pasture is such that we all gather a good
harvest. The problem is that if one of us has an extra cow, no one notices, so one does. Then another sees this and does the same because it is a
common, and there is no centally imposed legislation, just loose agreement. And another has more cows and another, and....... The common gets
overgrazed and grows weeds that cows cannot eat and everybody can hold up less cows than before.
The problem with the banks is that they were trying to grow extra cows than they can. The problem with the ruination is that we need central
legislation, yet argue against it.
The whole point of Thatcherism is that the company (should) give values to shareholders regardless of anything bar the law. Their chief executives
should not be paying millions towards lobbying around the law. With small companies, this works perfectly. Reality is that big companies do lean on
politicians of all parties, and fail to keep impartiality and impose a view on the law of adding value to dividends (their bonuses). They get the law
changed. Of course in turn, the more career manufactured politicians get funding towards their campaigns.
Politicians need to realise that they can change things in other ways than through corruption. We need companies to function properly and politicians
to realise that they can help people morally, rather than just go for a cheap damnation to garner votes. The banks lobbied the politicians into our
current situation, with ten million dollars fro Lehmann's alone, where are the brown envelopes and where is the politician's integrity? The answer
is many skid marks and little to no integrity.
Question: Do you think politicians actually believe that collectively they are bigger than the markets?