Posted: Mar 16, 2014 12:00 pm
UndercoverElephant wrote:I'm not sure "trust" is the right word to use here. I do not doubt the integrity and motives of PositiveMoney. In that sense, I see no reason to "distrust" them (they aren't politicians, they aren't people with some sort of religious ideology to defend, they are just trying to educate people and provoke change, and have no reason to lie). However, as you suggest, the situation regarding potential alternatives is very complex and it would not be sensible to jump to any conclusions or swallow anybody-else's relatively-simple answers to complicated questions.
Sure, it's not really their motivations, although I'd prefer they didn't talk about inequality and other issues that could be considered partisan. It's their competence. That's not meant to be a sleight - as you say, it is not trivial to work out the implications of the various possible systems.
UndercoverElephant wrote:For example: when we look at this simply in terms of the way the UK operates, internally, then it is fairly clear that the banking sector acts as a parasite on the rest of society. But on the other hand, because London is so important as an international finance centre, the London banks are also acting as parasites on other countries, and to a certain extent the rest of the population of the UK gains from this (in tax revenues, etc...) So while from a completely neutral, global perspective, there is no case for keeping the system the way it is, the same is not quite so true from a UK-centric point of view. And this is just one example of the sort of complexities involved.
Yes. Although I suspect it's far more parasitic on us than the rest, given it was us that bailed them out, and it's our smart people going to work in the banks instead of elsewhere.