h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

My first thought is to agree with 'Crickett', that the one word that sums up the origin of the problem best is Greed.

I cannot agree with KWDave's simplistic thought that people in the U.S. insist on living 'well beyond their means' (not to suggest that they don't). The uncollateralized mortgages were and are written by banks and mortgage brokers. They tell the consumer how much house they can afford. The people who trusted bad calculations, or encouraged lying on the forms to 'make the deal', are no more at fault than the U.S. Congresspersons (of all parties) who were lied to about 'weapons of mass destruction' and made poor judgement calls based on the administration's persistent claim to superior knowledge.

More pointedly and systemically the problems that began with the U.S. meltdown are the result of the Conservative far right. I don't say this because I favour the far left, or have an axe to grind with conservatism, but there is an aspect to conservatism that is not understood even by many conservatives.

Conservatives (individuals) want to conserve, or hang onto, that which they have. It goes without saying that they also want more; don't we all.

Liberals, on the other hand, want to liberate and spread liberally the resources of the group. Also not a bad thing, and not quite the same as socialism.

However, the conservatives have an agenda, that fit with their views, that means to privatise government wherever they can. They want less government control/intervention (bureacracies/regulation), and believe these powers should rest with business and the wealthy (think, robber barons, sweatshops, unsafe/substandard products, etc.).

In the U.S., they've been touting the privatisation of their Social Security System, telling folks that they want them to feel empowered to make their own investments (in stocks and paper), to increase their wealth. Well, we can see where that idea would have put Social Security today!

Lowered regulation has seen an increase in the risk of commercial airline flights, increased risk due to food contamination, dangerous products being imported from China, etc., etc.

So, now that they have worked so hard to let the 'free market' fend for itself, and it has imploded, they find themselves doing the thing that they wanted least to happen. The governments are having to get MORE involved in the financial systems, bail out business, buy up banks and mortage firms, etc., etc.

You can't give away everything, and you cannot continue to consolidate everything, without problems. There is always a middle ground.

What surprises me is that most of the powers-that-be don't understand that the concept of 'distribution of wealth' is a necessary function of any society that wants to prolong itself. No society exists for long with out some distribution mechanism. You need to know and understand more of sociology to truly get it, but the powers need to take the word of those who are expert.

Every major uprising, that changed a government system (think France), has been preceded by a time when the haves decided that they wanted it all; that it is every dog for itself, and let the buyer beware.

I cannot agree with this polarised view of throwing blame to the far right - in fact I totally disagree with it.

Historical examples only re-inforce the concept that those in power do whatever they can to cling to power, be it the Kings in France, or the commisars in Russia.

Suddenly and apparently totally unplanned, Britain finds itself almost turned into a socialist state - control of the banking system is the most critical objective for government, once you control the finance, you decide the direction of investment. Already strings have been attached to the Lloyds/HBOS merger to retain jobs in Scotland - and where do our chancellor and Prime Minister have their seats ?

Either Gordon Brown is a revolutionary genius who has deliberately undermined the banking system for the last 10 years, or he is a buffoon whos short-sighted thrashing about was merely a desperate attempt to cling to the reins of power.

I must confess I'm leaning towards the former view.......

Hi McKay!

Thanks for chiming in. I'm so glad you put it 'I cannot agree...', as nobody can prove whether or not they're 'right' when speaking philosophically.

I did throw the blame to the far right, but not to conservatives or conservatism in general. It has been my observation that most of societies' problems result from extreme views that also include those of the far left or any other politico/socio/theological extremes.

I certainly didn't suggest going to the other extreme; just that, as is true in most things, the truth (or optimum) virtually always lies somewhere between the extremes.

There is no denying that the far right have tried their best to divest government of controls. They want a strong military, but a weak government - a dangerous concept in the best of times.

It is the Conservatives who profess they want small government, to reduce taxes (in the US, capital gains tax reduction), and less regulation, and a 100% free market. But, we have historical evidence of what results one can expect from a small, weak, government. The first US government failed for that very reason.

The government was so weak, it held no powers over the 13 soverign states. It could not even act in the best interest of the union because it lacked powers to combine their resources and protections. It was little more of a loose version of the UN.

If that government had survived, and continued through WWI, the world would probably been speaking German. Certainly, it would not have had any impact on WWII.

Abraham Lincoln called it a government, of the people, by the people, and for the people. Sounds a bit socialistic, doesn't it? Yet the Republican party proudly claim him one of their own; even though he denied the lower states the right to secede, took them by force, and redistributed wealth by releasing their slaves and giving away acreage.

Simply, it's not conservatism that caused the current problems, but it was largely the failed policies of the far right. Just look at who offered the $700 billion bill (USD) to the Congress.

Both extremes are to be avoided, in my opinion. And, while the causes for the financial crisis may vary from country to country, I feel that it is safe to place the whole thing in the lap of the far right in the US.

Enough, though, about the US Tell me more about how this is impacting Scotland.

I think with controls the middle ground is the place to be, and similarly with government.

Having said that I think we are weakened by having a system whereby the government cannot be challenged, and there are is no effective control over rogue politicians.

Effectively we are denied the opportunity of hearing views that stray from a narrow middle ground, and politics, and the country, are weaker for it.