Crickettedog (October 8, 2008 at 9:46 pm)

@billvancouver: Don't ever buy gold unless you know you will be able to sell it.

billvancouver72 (October 7, 2008 at 9:39 pm)

His final explanation of why they blew up is false. It was not a lack of "faith" but the reality that too many people with mortgages in these derivative packages could not afford their mortgages that they should never have been able to qualify for in the first place. It is all part of the pan to create hyperinflation to get out of debt while wiping out the middle class. 2 more words - BUY GOLD!!!

louis12346 (September 29, 2008 at 2:37 am)

Former fed chairman Alan Greenspan has been a defender of derivatives since 1999 or before . Did you know that the same guy pushed subprime loans has also pushed derivativesother regulatory agencies and Congress have taken a totally hands-off approach towards derivatives.How Big a Problem?How big is the derivatives market? Worldwide, it is $596 TRILLION dollars *. The derivatives market dwarfs the real market for goods and services, and acts likes an unregulated black market.Prison?

disdanic (September 23, 2008 at 9:59 am)

Indonesia is an atrociously governed country with an almost inconceivably corrupt public service, and its corporate culture is dominated by the Chinese. Given its population, it isn't all that resource rich (it recently became a net-importer of oil). It lacks a decent education system and does not have a climate of entrepreneurial spirit. However, the real issue is that Indonesia has been dominated by the military for most of its independent history, stymieing economic and social reform

disdanic (September 23, 2008 at 9:51 am)

When large countries are in the early stages of industrialization, there is a massive surplus of unskilled labour. This translates to cheap labour. However, industrialization in the long term results in a skilled, educated workforce, which the shrinks the pool of cheap labour. The reason conditions are better in the rich world is that industry is capital intensive as opposed to labour intensive. Workers shift into better paid, service-based jobs, and menial work undertaken using capital inputs.

disdanic (September 23, 2008 at 9:38 am)

You're referring to the American usage of liberal, to mean left-wing. Economic liberalism and neo-liberalism are based on the same principles, the 'neo' merely means 'new' (as liberalism lost favour during the 1970s, then came back into prominence during the mid 80s). The differences in working conditions between Asia and the West are due to differences in the availability and cost of labour, and the level of development and education in those parts of the world, not government policies.

Brooklyn83 (September 23, 2008 at 9:00 am)

Neo-liberal and liberal free market policies are different things. The major economies cant afford neo-liberalism, because they need a consumer market, which they cant have if everyone works in sweat shops. They keep those workers in places like Indonesia and China. That's how global capitalism works. And yes, market forces are vital to any successfull economic system. There must be trade, but it must be regulated in a way that prevents vast economic inequality.

Brooklyn83 (September 23, 2008 at 8:45 am)

I don't beleive socialism levels-out societies. It CAN help to ensure a higher standard of living, and greater economic justice for the people who actually create the wealth. From the history thing I know that the Indonesian Islands were valued colonies becuase they were rich in natural resources and had excellent ports. So they should be rich today, but their not because the WTO drafted their economic policy in the 1970s and now most of their wealth is controlled by foreign companies...

disdanic (September 23, 2008 at 8:07 am)

I was simply making the point that socialist policies don't level out societies as you naively and immaturely believe they do. Spare me the emotive babble please, ever heard of 'other variables'? There's a thing called 'history' that explains the differences in living standards in south-east asia and western europe, you might want to check it out. Indeed they do, and should, but all major industrialized nations are based on liberal, free-market capitalism. Are you for or against this?

Brooklyn83 (September 23, 2008 at 4:43 am)

So Western Europe is a monsterous hell for the people unfortunate enough to live there? I suppose neo-liberal Indonesia is a paradise then? I'll take Paris over Jakarta any day, myself. What with the latter's sweat shops, it's shantys and it's pools of stagnant water with bloated pig carcasses in them. All the major industrialized nations regulate capital for the good of their consumers workers and investors. That's not neo-liberalism, but it's not authoritarian central planning either.