On Thursday, George Soros penned an op-ed in the FT arguing that Germany needs to engage in a thought experiment, one involving withdrawing from the European single currency: The restored Deutschemark would soar, the euro would plummet. The rest of Europe would become competitive and could grow its way out of its difficulties but Germany would find out how painful it can be to have an overvalued currency. Its trade balance would turn negative, and there would be widespread unemployment. Banks would suffer severe losses on exchange rates and require large injections of public funds. But the government would find it politically more acceptable to rescue German banks than Greece or Spain. And there would be other compensations; German pensioners could retire to Spain and live like kings, helping Spanish real estate to recover. Some time later on Thursday, Bloombergâs Erik Schatzker interviewed Hugh Hendry of Eclectica in London at the newswireâs sovereign debt summit. Schatzer asked Hendry whether he agreed with Soros that the future of the eurozone depended on Germany. The question triggered a series of non-sequiturs, including a unique definition of socialism: Socialism is when you build a moat around the castle Erm. Click the image below to see the video. Comments on Soros, socialism, moats and tax avoidance start just after the 1-minute mark. Worth staying tuned for his comments on shorting and Asian currencies). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUq2ZBioGKU http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2010/06/24/270531/hugh-hendry-soros-has-embraced-socialism/ ROFL....
While looking at the vid, I ran into these videos that feature Marc Faber, Hugh Hendry, Nassim Taleb under one roof. The Russian Forum Debate: Marc Faber, Hugh Hendry, Nassim Taleb Part 1 <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/YQ2otZqmNKE&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/YQ2otZqmNKE&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object> Part 2 <object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/n8crFWYHlWw&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/n8crFWYHlWw&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object> The entire shebang can be found here: http://pragcap.com/deep-thoughts-from-hugh-hendry-nassim-taleb-and-gurus
Some Thatcherisms : "Communist regimes were not some unfortunate aberration, some historical deviation from a socialist ideal. They were the ultimate expression, unconstrained by democratic and electoral pressures, of what socialism is all about. " "Socialism's results have ranged between the merely shabby and the truly catastrophic - poverty, strife, oppression and, on the killing fields of communism, the deaths this century of perhaps 100 million people." And of course, "The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."
Socialism promoted by richest people on Earth can probably be summarized by that sentence. As their status, wealth, and power are kept under the version of socialism they are promoting. Can't help thinking of George Orwell's 1984 - "ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS" =P
I once tried to find a uniform definition of socialism, did you know it doesn't exist? Certain limited socialism works, like auto insurance, but only when it is disciplined by markets and the participants are voluntary. It needs rules and oversight but in general the less government the better. Other types of socialistic ventures, like the military working as a team, work because they are built upon discipline and everyone has a common goal. The worst type of socialism, redistribution policies, are bad because they use people's envy as a political tool. There is no deliberation as to whether the recipient actually 'deserves' the handout, no disciplining the recipient when they fail to perform, no social contract at all- just the assumption that egalitarianism is an unquestionably righteous goal. As Thatcher said, communism is the best way to achieve that but what the communists found was that people don't produce a lot under command and control (unless you point a gun at them)- they just drink a lot because they are so depressed. Along comes the 'third way', basically closet communists that tax the snot out of you if you make anything. The communists discovered it is better to wait and let producers do their thing, then take it after the job is done. I know a few russians and ex eastern types, they all still have the socialist instincts they were brought up with. Soros is no surprise to me.