For those who believe in truly free capital market economy fully backed by

[tonychat]

A true democratic system is without greed. IN sinkieland, there is no such thing, sinkies need to be controlled in order for even the slightest thing to work.

Is sinkies are obedient, they will be rewarded. If not, they will not make it in their life. What a way to live.

 

[Zombie]

A 100% free market economy only exists in theory. In practice, all types of economies have some forms of regulations. The difference is in degrees.

The bailout plan is to help prevent a collapse of the financial system. The US govt would not have intervened if the failures of individual banks had not had a serious impact on the rest of the economy.

Nobody here demanded USA to adopt a perfectly free market economy.

Nevertheless, the magnitude of the whole event has clearly shown that USA, without a choice, turned against its holiest policies. It means that USA can never say that they have the right system after all.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/t...le4882390.ece?print=yes&randnum=1223316291031

No longer can the US force its version of capitalism on the developing world or turn its nose up at the alternative models of authoritarian capitalism offered by China and Russia. Or at France’s protection of vital infra-structure companies, such as Danone.

 

[Zombie]

A true democratic system is without greed.

Greed is human.

 

[chinkangkor]

You do not see where I came from.

This is what I said [Is this check and balance system maintained by an independant judicial system that fiercely upholds the law with utmost transparency and openness?]

The prerequisite would be a regulatory system that outlaws certain harmful business practices.

The financial regulatory system is not the same as the judiciary. They are as different as apples and oranges.

 

[The_Latest_H]

Is this check and balance system maintained by an independant judicial system that fiercely upholds the law with utmost transparency and openness?

Like any man-made system, there will be people who will try to circumvent the system. But as a democracy, it also exposes such cases earlier than other systems.

The fact that such a case was made public, and that the media, and the Senate committee shamed the five is unimaginable in a dictatorial system.

My point is that it doesn't mean that if the Keating scandal happens in the US, but doesn't happen in Singapore, means Singapore's better. It just means the system in the US detected a virus, and exposed it fairly early. In contrast, in Singapore, as long as the politicians are in control of everything, who knows what these politicians do behind the people's back, in collusion with big business leaders, corrupted accountants and lawyers and what not?

Sweeping bad things under the carpet, as what happened many times in Imperial China, and now in Singapore, and in Malaysia, puts paid to the 'fact' that dictatorial governments are better than democracies just because the media doesn't expose such scandals and the people are ignorant enough to bo-chap.

 

[Zombie]

The financial regulatory system is not the same as the judiciary. They are as different as apples and oranges.

Before I respond, I like to ask:
"Then, as an example, who came forth to judge on Enron's case?"

 

[chinkangkor]

Before I respond, I like to ask:
"Then, as an example, who came forth to judge on Enron's case?"

There was financial fraud and the top executives were prosecuted.

 

[chinkangkor]

You are being nice. This is no oversight. USA thought liberalisation, deregulation, non-state intervention are the keys to allow flexibility and response to economic changes. They believed that the market would recover on its own.

That is the philosophy of free market but there are market failures which need govt interventions.

 

[Zombie]

There was financial fraud and the top executives were prosecuted.

Fine. Then you probably missed the word "OUTLAW" I used in the my earlier post.

 

[Zombie]

That is the philosophy of free market but there are market failures which need govt interventions.

In 1997, Asia was having the financial crisis, due to the effect from liberalisation, deregulation and non-state intervention ie policies from USA. And G7 called this a price that has to be paid to move forward.

Now USA takes the reverse path.

 

[chinkangkor]

In 1997, Asia was having the financial crisis, due to the effect from liberalisation, deregulation and non-state intervention ie policies from USA. And G7 called this a price that has to be paid to move forward.

Now USA takes the reverse path.

There are interests of other nations at stake this time, notably China and Japan, both of which hold trillions of US treasury bills. The collapses of US and European financial systems will bring down the global financial system together.

The financial crises in 1997 did not affect G7 countries, only several countries mostly in Asia, excluding China and Japan.

 

[Zombie]

Like any man-made system, there will be people who will try to circumvent the system. But as a democracy, it also exposes such cases earlier than other systems.

The fact that such a case was made public, and that the media, and the Senate committee shamed the five is unimaginable in a dictatorial system.

My point is that it doesn't mean that if the Keating scandal happens in the US, but doesn't happen in Singapore, means Singapore's better. It just means the system in the US detected a virus, and exposed it fairly early. In contrast, in Singapore, as long as the politicians are in control of everything, who knows what these politicians do behind the people's back, in collusion with big business leaders, corrupted accountants and lawyers and what not?

Sweeping bad things under the carpet, as what happened many times in Imperial China, and now in Singapore, and in Malaysia, puts paid to the 'fact' that dictatorial governments are better than democracies just because the media doesn't expose such scandals and the people are ignorant enough to bo-chap.

I see that you are going into the path of "who is the lesser evil", particularly with reference to political systems. I don't think that was the essential part of my discussion. Maybe I have gone into the unwarranted territory? But if I have to choose, your answer is as good as mine.

 

[Zombie]

There are interests of other nations at stake this time, notably China and Japan, both of which hold trillions of US treasury bills. The collapses of US and European financial systems will bring down the global financial system together.
The financial crises in 1997 did not affect G7 countries, only several countries mostly in Asia, excluding China and Japan.

So, lesser people jump off buildings, the policies should stay?

 

[chinkangkor]

So, lesser people jump off buildings, the policies should stay?

Too bad that some countries needed financial assistance from IMF. If the country needs not take up the financial rescue package, the country can then use the method it deems to be in its best interest.

Malaysia did not take up the offer from IMF and went on to impose currency control. It came out of the crisis on its own.

 

[Zombie]

Too bad that some countries needed financial assistance from IMF. If the country needs not take up the financial rescue package, the country can then use the method it deems to be in its best interest.

Malaysia did not take up the offer from IMF and went on to impose currency control. It came out of the crisis on its own.

You missed the keyword "Policies" in my post you just replied to. What matters most is the underlying principles, in other words, the universal laws.

USA had these policies, because they believed that the market can largely self-manage and recover on its own. Many of their lawmakers still hang on to this belief, but most of them have to adopt a different route, as they are accepting the reality (against the belief) that the policies work no more.

 

[chinkangkor]

You missed the keyword "Policies" in my post you just replied to. What matters most is the underlying principles, in other words, the universal laws.

USA had these policies, because they believed that the market can largely self-manage and recover on its own. Many of their lawmakers still hang on to this belief, but most of them have to adopt a different route, as they are accepting the reality (against the belief) that the policies work no more.

Extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures.

 

[Zombie]

Extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures.

And these extraordinary measures mean betrayal.

 

[chinkangkor]

And these extraordinary measures mean betrayal.

It means being pragmatic and flexible.

 

[Zombie]

It means being pragmatic and flexible.

Call it whatever you like.
It is in reality a betrayal.

 

[chinkangkor]

Call it whatever you like.
It is in reality a betrayal.

Market failures require govt interventions. Nothing to do with betrayal.