So let's recap.

I answered Trilarion's suggestion about reducing the power of money by saying in summary that reducing the power of money == throwing away the baby (capitalism) together with the dirty water (suffering). If you want to look deeper I am even going as far to say reducing the power of money only throws away the baby, and makes the water dirtier.

You proceeded to jump in as if I was saying the exact opposite? And you're doubling down on it? And I'm the buffoon?

Let me be very clear. You might inconvenience elites via capital controls short term, but the main thing you will achieve is to accelerate fascism, ergo accelerate the ongoing transition towards more and more direct national control of the economy, ergo control over "Human Action", ergo control over the lives of those masses you say you care so much about. If anything this is just the recipe to let the elites make like bandits longer term. Or in other words it's cutting off your nose to spite your face.

If you actually think international capital controls are good for whatever reason - be it economic protectionist "warfare", be it maybe reducing inequality / suffering - then make that case. But do stop with the strawmanning.

Not much of a recap. :(

Money is money, the power lies in having control of it's issuance. You say that leaving it in the hands of a tiny group of scum-sucking banksters is well and good, to which I say that it is vastly preferable to leave it in the hands of an elected gov't. If you think that's fascism, you know as much about fascism as you do about crony capitalism; which, for the record, is far more akin to socialism than it is to capitalism.

Globalization is the consolidation of governmental and corporate power into elite entities, the workings of which are hidden from public purview. This is the antithesis of democracy, and is commonly referred to as oligarchy, and as far as I'm concerned it's no less detestable than fascism.

So apparantly Boris Johnson believes the UK will flourish after the Brexit, but he won't be the guy leading the country into that golden age.

Say you, but on what authority? the text is still there for anyone to compare with.

You are assuming too much, and I think misreading the whole conversation. It's funny in a way because now I guess I see what "triggered" you. Basel III does concern leverage limits, or whatever those are called when expanding the money supply via issuing of credit. Hence the connection I guess you drew - incorrectly - because I never said that I am ok with banking being able to create money out of thin air. The proponents of liquidity have some valid points, but not without stricter liability and mitigating moral hazard by allowing bankrupcies. And I personally lean much more towards harder currency type proposals, even at the cost of slowing down innovation somewhat.

But anyway, I did tell Trilarion at the very outset he was describing Basel III wrongly, and completely ignored the substance he gave to focus on the - let's say propaganda aspect - of his word choice. You see, this is not the first time I talk with Trilarion, unllike you I guess. So I went to the higher level about what "reducing the power of money" actually means in practice, which is what I've since then been trying to point out to you was the only topic I was making.

As to what you are calling globalization, so as to not drag this into even more political territory, I guess I will just ask you what do you call the increasingly interconnected global trade / flows of capital that happened from the late seventies onwards, brought about by the development of container ships, by the relaxation of trade barriers with the third world, and then accelerated hugely since the nineties, fueled by the further liberalization brought by the end of Cold War, as well by the spread of telecom and the internet, and the adoption of outsorcing and offshoring. Because that's what I, and I guess almost everyone, calls globalization. A fundamentally economic / commerce thing from the past 50 years. Not a sociopolitical / class thing stemming from the end of WW2.

So, since you at least gave up trying to say I'm in favor of crony capitalism (just continuing to insinuate I don't know what it is) and have now hopefully understood I am likewise not in favor of Bretton Woods monetarism (hard for me to give a name to what you call "globalization" because I sure will not use the expression "New World Order" unless you are happy with it) can you re evaluate whatever you are trying to achieve in this conversation?

And really, knock it off with the personal insults innuendo. You're clearly smart enough to know better. As far as I'm concerned you completely misread my intent and assumed too much that I never said.

Yeah. Funny that. Apparently all he's ever wanted was to be PM but suddenly he's just not that interested...

The way I see it he's realised that who ever takes over now is screwed so he's either letting someone else be a scapegoat or admitted defeat (I can't imagine his credibility being particularly high after this...), I really don't think he actually expected leave to win...

Apparantly the most important reason was the fact that one of his fellow Brexit-supporters suddenly turned on him and started syphoning votes away. Though the unattractiveness of the job might have been a factor. The job of PM at this time seems like a clear-cut case of political suicide. Since the Brexit camp already admitted that their two major leave-arguments (350 million being put into NHS and the severe immigration restriction) weren't gonna happen, the new PM will be under fire from the Brexit-supporters who felt used. At the same time, since Cameron didn't invoke article 50, the new PM will be forced to go through with it instead and will have to own the recession.

Worst job in the world.

I don't think so. Boris has a lot of skeletons in his closet. There are tapes of him arranging for a man to be beaten up. I suspect there's worse, and I suspect he's just been closed out by threats to reveal the rest of his shit. He's a nasty man, even been called so on air, and not disputed it. Gove won't get in, but has done the UK a favour keeping that particular problem out of it.

Prime minister May is most likely, though I've been wrong before, about this. Even calling it early, then getting it wrong. May - next PM, official!

No. Rudimentary technology (agriculture, construction, navigation, etc) and commerce are what lifted humanity from scrabbling animal to civilization. Modern science as we know it, as wonderful as it is, is a relative newcomer to the scene of human history.

Actual capitalism is simply the most moral and efficient system of commerce, but it has only rarely been allowed to operate unhindered throughout history. Cronyism (wherein the economic interests of a particular group are enforced by state coercion) has been and remains far more common. Yet despite constant interference from those who would steal and kill for either their own gain or for their vision of a "better world", capitalism has produced untold wealth and prosperity.

Science is important, but commerce is the backbone of civilization, and capitalism is the most just form of commerce.

Recommended viewing:

Does Capitalism Exploit Workers? - Learn Liberty

I wouldn't sign this statement. We don't have perfect information and theories about the working of capitalism usually assume this, so they must be kind of inaccurate by design. Also capitalism seems to increase inequality and concentrates wealth. That's why typically redistribution by governmental intervention (taxes, ...) is done - probably as an answer to the obvious shortcomings of capitalism. For example in the 1920s there was roaring capitalism and in the end there was widespread poverty and a big economic crisis while after world war two everything was in shambles but Keynesian policies brought 20 years of economic boom and full employment.

My opinion: Pure capitalism is too extreme, there is not a single purely capitalistic country in the world now and that's because it's already clear that capitalism alone is not the best. A good compromise of social security, transparency, competition rules, redistribution and otherwise as much capitalism as possible is the best and those who hit that compromise best will flourish most.

Breaking News

Somehow unrelated but the results of the presidential Austrian election have just been cancelled. So Austrians will have to re-vote between Hofer and Van Der Bellen. The new elections would be scheduled around this autumn. It's surely gonna be interesting.....

What happened?

English-speaking link:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36681475

No. The backbone of our civilisation is the environment. As long as that's still not grasped all future will be leaning toward dystopia. Trash and abuse the environment and all else we might have achieved becomes unimportant. Sadly we are precisely on that course - see debate re: Sixth Mass Extinction.

Might fit here:
Oh Shit, Brexit | Full Frontal with Samantha Bee | TBS

I was expecting more from a "Full Frontal" link :o(