The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Off Topic Discussions > Could Kings be Cool?
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 07-29-2009, 06:59 AM
horatio's Avatar
horatio horatio is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,282
Default

Even classical economist should have seen the signs of at least the bubble on the housing market. It's not like bubbles have not been around for decades.

But conventional economic wisdom says that securization takes the risks out of a few big banks and spreads them much wider, so this might have blinded most of our profession.

If you believe (virtually no empirical work in that area) that asymmetric information leads to severe incentive problems in some situations, it's not like the conclusions lead directly to socialism.
In the case of capital markets, one just realizes that banks have an incentive to behave very risky. You don't need economics for this conclusion, common sense suffices. If you gamble with other people's money, you will play a very risky game. So any kind of rule has to guarantee that banks will not behave in a overly risky way.
We just need to force all banks, including shadow banks, to underlie their credits consistenly with equity, we just need to fix some loopholes in the current rules.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 07-29-2009, 07:32 AM
TheTrekkie's Avatar
TheTrekkie TheTrekkie is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Stuttgart, Germany
Posts: 1,030
Default

The problem I see is that there are already a lot of theories that could explain some of the malefunctions in our economic systems, but many economist just play around in their theoretical models without watching at the real effects that happen contemporaneous in the more complex reality around them, they don't see the complex legal interdependences of specific laws, specific legal compositions. These things are left for the business economists that study law/accounting/tax...

One economists once pointed out a structural problem that could lead to wrong incentives for many German scientists.
Their research grant depends on how much they publish in renowned international papers. Therefore noone has any incentive to look behind the structures and day-today business of any internationally unknown German bank and what effects e.g. the loss of government backing with a transition period for the LBBW & Co would have on their risk attitute, what effects specific juristic possibilities like SPEs would result, what effects a change in §XY could have on the behaviour of the eonomic entities and therefore on the whole national economy....
__________________
And if tyrants take me, And throw me in prison, My thoughts will burst free, Like blossoms in season.
Foundations will crumble, The structure will tumble, And free men will cry:
Thoughts are free!

Last edited by TheTrekkie : 07-29-2009 at 07:35 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 07-29-2009, 09:01 AM
Botany Bay's Avatar
Botany Bay Botany Bay is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Berlin
Posts: 2,112
Default

The UK has the Royal Family. The United States have the Hiltons, the Kennedies, the Guggenheims, the Bushs or the Hensleys (see Cindy McCain). Germany has the Quandts and other clans. Lets say the UK and Sweden or Norway are at least consequent in calling their arsitocracy an aristocracy, instead of posing their richest and wealthiest families as "hard working self-made-men".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50jHVPt8DPA

Last edited by Botany Bay : 07-29-2009 at 09:13 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 07-29-2009, 09:04 AM
Zardoz's Avatar
Zardoz Zardoz is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Somewhere In The Future
Posts: 31,432
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Botany Bay View Post
The UK has the Royal Family. The United States have the Hiltons, the Kennedies, the Guggenheims, the Bushs or the Hensleys (see Cindy McCain). Lets say the UK are at least consequent in calling their arsitocracy an aristocracy, instead of posing their richest and wealthiest citisens as "hard working self-made-men".
The people who founded those fortunes were, but their anscestors shouldn't get to keep playing it.
__________________
"High Priestesses Of Zardoz" By Eliza's Starbase Of Avatars Copyright 2009."
"Zardoz Speaks To You, His Choosen Trek Fans."
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 07-29-2009, 09:53 AM
The Guardian's Avatar
The Guardian The Guardian is offline
Lieutenant, Junior Grade
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 212
Default

You see the reason why our ancestors came to America was to get away from those wacky inbred monarchs, mutant dictators, and monster despots. Why would you want them here?
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 07-29-2009, 10:10 AM
Samuel Samuel is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,883
Default

Why should we add a monarchy when the U.K. by and large is trying to get rid of theirs?

Oh and by the way... two very scary words... "Princess Paris"
__________________
Never underestimate the power of a dark clown!
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 07-29-2009, 10:24 AM
FanWriter45's Avatar
FanWriter45 FanWriter45 is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Conway, Arkansas. It's a nice little town with three Universities in it, and surrounded by woods.
Posts: 3,051
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Odradek View Post
I appreciate this, in the fact that they made it look more like the GOP's logo than that of the Dems... LOL

(And no, I don't think kings are "cool"... you may remember about 230 years ago, a bunch of us fought against England over this very question. So I take it you, OP, are a loyalist to King George? Will you fight against your own countrymen when the Brits try to take over? That you hate the ideas of the Founding Fathers and intend to reject self-rule for yourself and all of your children and your grandchildren?)

Besides, George Bush tried to crown himself King of the US... and look at how THAT turned out!
__________________
Number Two: Conform, Number Six! Conform!

Number Six: I will not be stamped, filed, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered! I am a person.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 07-29-2009, 01:17 PM
Botany Bay's Avatar
Botany Bay Botany Bay is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Berlin
Posts: 2,112
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel View Post
While most countries are getting rid of hereditary rule why should the U.S. add it?
Is anybody here really thinking the US should get them a King?

Well, even if somebody would find that thought attractive, its impossible, for the same reasons it was impossible in 1776, and the founding fathers knew it.

Monarchies are build on two things: Lineage and Religion.

When the US decided to secede from the british empire, they could not get a king, even if they would have wanted to. Where to get a king from? Monarchies all base their legitemacy on "Gods Will". Thats why every monarchy has a myth about their first King, like he had a vision as a young men, or he slaughtered a dragon, or there was a sign from the stars, a sign from destiny or God himself, stuff like that. The long lineage is necessary to have an explanation why there are no witnesses for Gods sign ("It happened a long time ago, before cameras where invented. So, sorry kid, no photos of Gods Sign. You must have faith!").

Now, even if the founding fathers would have wanted to get a king, good luck in finding someone who is popular, rich, famous, has a fitting political mindset, a long lineage and a "well known" magic happening in his family record.

The thing is that the term tyrant actually doesnt mean a king, but an illegitimate king. Napoleon was considered a tyrant, but not because he may have ruled badly or brutal, nobody cared about that anyway. Napoleon was considered a tyrant because he had no long lineage and no magical myth surrounding his crowning. The term tyrant merely meant, the monarch or dictator was manmade, not from God.

Furthermore, the founding fathers would have had to decide what God had chosen their King and what confession is the right interpretation of the will of this God. Considering all those different confessions, religions and cults that lived in the US, every attempt to have a king would have caused a civil war immediatly.

So, no monarchy, no way. We dont even need to think about wether monarchies are a bad thing, or just a little bad, or wether the founding fathers believed in democracy and freedom and what that meant to them. After all there was just no way for the young born US to have a king. Secession from the Empire needed the newborn nation to adopt democracy. No democracy, no secession, for the lack of a king.

Last edited by Botany Bay : 07-29-2009 at 01:21 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 07-29-2009, 01:18 PM
Star Trek Viewer Star Trek Viewer is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,057
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheTrekkie View Post
Most people just want the glamour, but not a king that has anything to say.
For most of the European countries the monarchy isn't much more than tradition, like the old houses you can watch as a tourist, but wouldn't build yourself when you have the money to build an own house for your family.
I don't think there still is any real monarchy left.
In theory, the British monarch can refuse Royal Assent, I think. The Queen also has a right to be consulted regarding important policy decisions. However, if the monarch did refuse Royal Assent to a piece of legislation, there would probably be some kind of constitutional crisis.

Canada is also a monarchy. The monarch of Canada -- its head of state -- is not the Prime Minister, but the queen of Canada, Elizabeth II, who also happens to be the Queen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (i.e., Queen Elizabeth II). Elizabeth II is not styled "Queen of Canada" unless actually in Canada. Her representative in Canada, the Governor-General of Canada, in theory can exercise some of her powers in her absence and could even cause the dissolution of Parliament. Some indication of this is seen in the fact that the Canadian Parliament cannot act without the monarch's mace in its chambers.

Some Canadians believe that the monarchy is a backstop against the possibility of an abuse of Prime Ministerial powers.

When the next British monarch succeeds Elizabeth II, assuming, in all likelihood, that it is the current royal Princes Charles or William, I believe Canada will have its first King in history (aside from leaders whose surname was "King").

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_Canada

Last edited by Star Trek Viewer : 07-29-2009 at 01:27 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 07-29-2009, 01:29 PM
Star Trek Viewer Star Trek Viewer is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,057
Default

Quote:
Is anybody here really thinking the US should get them a King?
The likelihood of that is smaller than that of Canada's invading the United States and imposing its government on it. Which is practically less than zero.

Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:13 AM.


Forum theme courtesy of Mark Lambert
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2009 by Paramount Pictures. STAR TREK and all related
marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved.