Bozur
Amicus
Posts: 5,515
|
Post by Bozur on Apr 1, 2009 18:12:58 GMT -5
Protesters scuffle in London's financial heart
LONDON, England (CNN) -- Police and protesters skirmished around the Bank of England on Wednesday as world leaders gathered for the G-20 summit.
Thousands of anti-capitalists, anarchists, and environmental campaigners descended for protests in several locations in London, including its financial center around the Bank of England, Britain's central bank.
Protesters broke several dark tinted windows of a Royal Bank of Scotland building and crawled inside. They also spray-painted the word "thieves" and the anarchist symbol on the side of the building.
The ailing bank has been the target of much anger following reports that its former chief executive was given a multi-million dollar pension payout despite overseeing record losses.
As evening approached, police pushed protesters towards the Bank of England to keep them penned in.
Small fires were set in the crowd of about 4,000 and effigies of bankers burned. A CNN correspondent reported many of them were frustrated at not being allowed to leave the area.
"Police are now working towards a controlled dispersal, where groups of people will be allowed to leave," the police said in a written statement just before 7 p.m. (2 p.m. EDT.)
"On the whole, it's not been too bad," a police spokesman said when pressed about the nature of the protests.
Eleven people were arrested for being in possession of police uniforms, a police spokesman told CNN. They had earlier been stopped while riding in an armored personnel carrier near Bishopsgate, close to the Bank of England. At least 32 people were arrested, including three at the RBS protest, police said.
Demonstration organizer Marina Pepper told CNN that she was disappointed with the policing. "They definitely came looking to cause trouble," she said.
Banners at the protest read "Arrest the War Criminals," "One Currency, One Country, One World," and "Capitalism Isn't Working." One protester stood in the crowd and strummed a guitar.
Fact Box This week's London Summit brings together the leaders of the world's 20 largest economic powers, known as the Group of 20, to discuss the global financial crisis and decide new measures to set the world on a more stable economic footing.
CNN producer Simon Hooper reported a more festive atmosphere at the parallel protest by environmentalists outside the European Climate Exchange nearby, as protesters pitched tents for a "climate camp."
They danced to drumbeats and ate lunches on blankets as part of a peaceful, festive protest.
Earlier in the day, up to 500 protesters had gathered for the "Apocalypse March" close to Liverpool Street station, a major transport hub in central London.
Despite the relatively good natured atmosphere, many shops in the area boarded up their windows and doors as the protesters, chanting "power to the people," got nearer.
British comedian Russell Brand, who was at the scene, told CNN that "everyone seemed to be having a good time." Asked if we was there to help overthrow capitalism, he replied: "It's not my decision, I'm just here observing."
Singer-songwriter and political activist Billy Bragg was also in the crowd outside the Bank of England.
Meanwhile, a 17-year-old student, taking part in a protest, wore a balaclava to hide his identity. He described himself as an environmental protester and said things were "going into meltdown." He added: "The whole thing is collapsing. If we can't change things by democratic means then this is the way to go."
Tamsin Omond, 24, told CNN that she traveled to London to "show my dissent at the system." She added: "Today is about showing that the old system hasn't worked. We need a new way of thinking about how we can solve the crisis."
Ian Dixon, from Whitby in northern England, lost his job in manufacturing at Christmas. He said he has not had any work since. He said: "Gordon Brown doesn't realize how bad things are. Bankers have been rewarded for doing a bad job."
At the start of the day commuter trains were quieter than usual, with many workers heeding police advice to "dress down."
Many commuters seemed to carry on as usual despite the threat of the protests turning ugly. City worker Alan Rice, who was wearing a suit, told CNN: "Most people seem to be wearing dress down clothes but I've dressed for work like this for 40 years." He added: "I'm not overly concerned about the protests. I've got faith in the British system."
Mike Wiltshire, who works in insurance, described how his daughter had said "Daddy please don't wear your tie today," before he left for work. But he added that he was wearing his suit "so police can distinguish him from the protesters."
Wednesday's protest, organized by an umbrella group called "G-20 Meltdown," was to feature four separate "carnival parades," each led by giant "Horseman of the Apocalypse" puppets. A flyer for the event, carries the slogan "Storm the Banks!" and features images of French revolutionaries storming the Bastille in 1789 and a mannequin of a banker hanging from a noose.
"We're going to reclaim the City, thrusting into the very belly of the beast: the Bank of England," the G-20 Meltdown Web site declared.
Organizers of the protest insisted their intentions are "theatrical," promising "mirth, merriment and the love in our hearts" and urging participants to "bring food to share, water, tea making facilities, something to sit on, a pop up tent if you plan to stay late."
But activists also published a map Tuesday with the details of scores of banks, financial companies, law firms and trading exchanges with offices in the City, prompting fears that symbols of capitalism could be targeted.
"It is believed that the majority of the protesters intend to conduct a peaceful demonstration," the police said in a statement. "Businesses should however, remain vigilant at all times and ensure that buildings are secure."
In the plush Mayfair neighborhood -- a few miles west of the financial center demonstrations -- protesters outside the U.S. Embassy were noisy but peaceful. www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/04/01/g20.london.protests/index.html
|
|
Bozur
Amicus
Posts: 5,515
|
Post by Bozur on Apr 1, 2009 18:14:33 GMT -5
Don't blame capitalism for this mess
A message to G-20 protesters: Free markets aren't the culprits. It's the way they've been manipulated.
By Hugo Dixon, breakingviews.com Last Updated: April 1, 2009: 10:39 AM ET
(breakingviews.com) -- The world faces crisis of finance, not a crisis of capitalism.
As protestors gather to denounce capitalism on the occasion of the G-20 summit in London, it is worth remembering that free markets and free trade are not to blame for the current economic mess. The real culprit has been skewed finance. This distortion has operated on four levels.
First, there has been an imbalance in world trade, with giant surpluses in China matched by deficits in the U.S., the U.K. and elsewhere. That allowed borrowers to rack up huge debts.
It was not a natural phenomenon of the free market. It was at least partly the result of China's decision to keep the renminbi's value artificially low.
Second, there has been the U.S. habit of bailing out the financial system whenever it hit trouble.
Investors used to talk about the "Greenspan put" in recognition of the fact that the former boss of the Federal Reserve could always be relied upon to squirt money on the markets at the first sign of trouble.
This, again, distorted the free market. It both numbed investors' fear, causing them to take excessive risks, and added cheap credit in the West to the liquidity pouring in from the East.
Third, there was the inherent distortion in having financial institutions that are considered "too big to fail".
Banks sailed too close to the wind because they knew the authorities could almost always be relied upon to bail them out. The antidote to having institutions that are "too big to fail" is either to cut them down to size so they can fail safely or to regulate them more tightly. But, in recent years, banks got bigger and were deregulated.
Fourth, there were the "heads-I-win-tails-you-lose" incentive plans for the financiers themselves.
If their bets paid off, they stood to become multi-millionaires. If they lost a packet, shareholders and ultimately taxpayers were left to pick up the tab. Some culprits have even been able to walk away with fat bonuses and enhanced pensions.
This, again, is not the free market. It is an asymmetry that turned finance into a casino.
So the G20 protestors should blame distortions rather than the free market. And the G20 leaders should aim to fix those distortions so the world never again has to face this mayhem. money.cnn.com/2009/04/01/news/international/breaking_views.breakingviews/index.htm
|
|
Bozur
Amicus
Posts: 5,515
|
Post by Bozur on Apr 1, 2009 18:16:07 GMT -5
Socialism to the Rescue?
How come Rick Wagoner (the former CEO of GM) gets fired for asking for a lousy $13 billion more in federal money, but the guys at the banks (that have taken hundreds of billions) get to keep their jobs?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not shedding any tears for Wagoner. It just seems that the administration is focusing on the smallest recipient of Federal largesse (the autos) when they should be jaw boning and firing people left and right at the banks.
It was great to see a big time executive held accountable, but it had the stink of misdirection on it. The misdirection being the switching of America’s collective focus from the almost $3 trillion that the Federal government now has out in financial guarantees.
A recent report by the Federal GAO office states that if previous fraud levels remain the same, the US tax payer will be defrauded of hundreds of billions dollars due to these various Federal guarantees. The government even announced that they are backing GM’s car warranties! Oh yeah, sure, that’s not going to get abused!!
Is America going to transform itself into a Welfare State? After World War II Britain made the conscious decision to become a Welfare State. I remember that being taught to us in school (in England) like it was a good thing! I came to America to escape the mediocrity and inefficiency that Welfare States breed.
This country was built by hardworking, risk taking pioneers, but alas the greed of an elite few have given capitalism a world wide black eye.
I am not defending the type of capitalism that pillages and plunders a nation's future to enrich the ultra privileged. Yes, massive mistakes have been made; greed has run amok, but the fundamental system of capitalism works.
As we go through this recession, which has now officially engulfed every state in the union (a feat not seen since the 1970’s) the populist voices will grow louder about the sins of capitalism.
We could very well see massive civil unrest ensue should millions of people end up getting turned out of their homes.
But no matter how ugly it gets, socialism is far uglier. Wealth isn’t distributed in a fairer fashion under socialism ... you still have the moneyed elite that end up getting all of the lucrative government contracts. The average person's standard of living actually goes lower. It’s only the people at the very lowest rung of the economic ladder who see their standard of living improve.
Socially that might sound great, but economically it’s disastrous. People at the lowest economic rung don’t meaningfully contribute to a country's economic growth. Giving them greater wealth has no multiplicative effect in a nation’s economy. They don’t build businesses, they don’t save, and they don’t buy houses.
Imagine that you owned a retail store with multiple lines of products, and instead of putting more money into the products that sell the most you put your money into the products that sell the least (by the way, this was a common practice at Woolworth's in the 1970’s and 1980’s, which hastened their demise). Pretty soon you will be stuck with all this money tied up in merchandise that isn’t producing any income for you, and that’s exactly what happens in socialism. Economic growth grinds to a snail's pace and an entire nation labors for the least efficient members of its society.
The good news is that we got through the great depression with out turning into a socialist state, so the chances are good that we will avoid that bullet this time around.
But be prepared to have a new agenda for America presented to you. Take it from me, I grew up on both sides of the economic fence, socialism is anti American, it is the very antithesis of what makes our country great. tycoonreport.tycoonresearch.com/articles/579678563/socialism-to-the-rescue
|
|
Bozur
Amicus
Posts: 5,515
|
Post by Bozur on Apr 1, 2009 18:19:24 GMT -5
USSR dissolved 20 years ago only now for the world to face Capitalism in a serious crisis to threaten its very survival with leading Capitalist state (US) turning more and more almost openly leftist if not outright socialist. Are at the start of a depression that might be prolonged for many more years and how will the new world order afterwords look like?
|
|
|
Post by Emperor AAdmin on Apr 1, 2009 18:29:31 GMT -5
Global Capitalism does appear to be in not only a unprecedented crisis but its Achilles heel might have been compromised.
|
|
|
Post by vinjak on Apr 1, 2009 22:48:20 GMT -5
What would be the realistic alternative to Global Capitalism ?
|
|
|
Post by Novus Dis on Apr 2, 2009 9:18:23 GMT -5
Free trade is the problem, not free market. EU countries are far from Capitalist yet they are also feeling the pinch.
|
|
|
Post by Novus Dis on Apr 2, 2009 9:24:18 GMT -5
The realistic alternative to "Global Capitalism" is "National Capitalism" or Capitalism centred around Protectionism. As far as I can tell, this "Global Capitalism" is centred around Mercantilism. It's not Capitalism, per se. It's Military Socialism or Fascism which sustains itself on a Mercantilist economy.
|
|
|
Post by Username on Apr 2, 2009 19:20:48 GMT -5
Free trade is the problem, not free market. EU countries are far from Capitalist yet they are also feeling the pinch. It's clear that you don't know a thing about economics if you are going to claim that free trade is the problem, and the solution is protectionism. Are you kidding? Free trade promotes growth. Protectionism hinders it. Do a little digging and you might find that yourself. There is NO alternative to capitalism. There is nothing wrong with capitalism. There just needs to be minor adjustments on regulations on important industries... What happened with this crisis is the fault of the banking industry.. and I'm sure they learned a BIG lesson that they will never be stupid enough to repeat again. Don't make it out to be more than it really is.
|
|
|
Post by Username on Apr 2, 2009 19:22:18 GMT -5
And just so you know.. Protectionism is what dug the world into an even larger hole during the Great Depression. That's one theory as to what prolonged it. Although to the blind eye protectionism may seem desirable at this point, going the protectionist route will have huge long term consequences.
|
|
|
Post by Novus Dis on Apr 5, 2009 8:29:07 GMT -5
It's clear that you don't know a thing about economics if you are going to claim that free trade is the problem, and the solution is protectionism. Are you kidding? Free trade promotes growth. Protectionism hinders it. Do a little digging and you might find that yourself. There is NO alternative to capitalism. There is nothing wrong with capitalism. There just needs to be minor adjustments on regulations on important industries... What happened with this crisis is the fault of the banking industry.. and I'm sure they learned a BIG lesson that they will never be stupid enough to repeat again. Don't make it out to be more than it really is. No, free markets promote growth. All free trade does is promote importing cheaper, inferior products that force local businesses to outsource local manufacturing jobs. Which causes most manufacturing businesses to cave. Either way it creates unemployment and reduces quality of goods. Protectionism does it exact opposite. And just so you know.. Protectionism is what dug the world into an even larger hole during the Great Depression. That's one theory as to what prolonged it. Although to the blind eye protectionism may seem desirable at this point, going the protectionist route will have huge long term consequences. How does Protectionism hinder local economic growth and prosperity among it's citizens?
|
|