This hopefully short-lived thread is intended to dissolve anger and misunderstanding I caused by quoting the fictious 'Gordon Gecko' on the function of greed from the movie "Wall Street" in the "Boeing Profits 1st, Safety 2nd?" thread to express a dissenting opinion on interventions in liberal markets to limit profits.

blaming sth. "communist" in the U.S. I learned from Richard that seems to be a derogatory label to reject peoples opinion as inadmissible when they dare to criticize conservatives or neoliberal excesses. Remnants of McCarthy's witch hunt. I don't know about UK or Australia.

In East Germany blaming "communist" means criticism of serious interventions in the economy, in civil rights (incl. elimination or restricting democracy) based on long-known experience of the damages that was inflicted between 1945 and 1990 within the Soviet dominated sphere in Eastern Europe. In former Western Germany, it seems younger generations do not sense such dangers at all.

Drawing lines in the sand: Richard is right, there can't be a line drawn in the sand between reason and ideology. Plurality of opinions requires constant public discourse to determine the will of the majority of what's reasonable and responsible. But it gets dangerous as soon as a narrowed or shallow public discourse (dismissing or ignoring dissenting arguments) fueled by government's or someone else propaganda achieves to seduce a majority to believe it, to accept serious interventions into economy (or restricting civil rights). Such propaganda is burned into our memories, not their manipulative aim, but the ability to recognize it.

Profit (when does that become greed?) is the basis for outstanding initiative, for further investments, developments, for technical revolutions, incentive to take debt or personal risks, to bear responsibility, for evolution. This is the positive reading of Gordon Gecko's definition of the functions of greed. But there's the negative as well: unjustified profit through predatory behaviour, without any contribution to the economy or society, instead damaging innocent's lives deliberately. That's immoral. Which definitely can be said of former Boeing CEOs or the whole board.

Excessive profit: Markets have to be transparent and fair (antitrust laws!). Excessive profit is undesirable, many say immoral. Yes, it is. Exploitation is immoral, so worker's unions are indispensable. Welfare must support the weak but refrain from pampering the able bodied. Food, housing, healthcare should be a human right in a modern society, not pampering...

Administrative intervention into price formation to limit profits is the worst mistake. It doesn't lead to a fair society but achieves hell. It disturbs the balance of supply and demand, the most complex function of an economy, influenced by decisions and knowledge of millions and tries to replace that by a few experts or decision makers which in the end will become the authors of five-year plans making centralized investment decisions and setting output figures for a whole economy. That's because each intervention results in further imbalances, requires further interventions. Control of price formation transforms an economy incrementally to a state-controlled one.

It resulted in deformed economic structures of entire countries behind the Iron Curtain which were no longer competitive. Later decline and decay (buildings, roads, train tracks, factories; but never as bad as in today's Russian peripheral regions). It required an enclosed zone, protected by fences, barbed wire, walls, deadly force at borders; and continuous lies to suppress public dissent, to carry on. That is to hinder the young, the educated, the motivated (greedy?) but frustrated from leaving their "workers paradise". The inflicted damages due to ideology changed former prosperous regions forever. Yes, in liberal economies some regions declined into rust belts too. Seems there's unavoidable decline (e.g. end of coal, dockyards). But ideology leads to unwanted (driven by noble intentions) but deliberate decline due to intervention, control, nationalisation.

There are a lot of youngsters on the streets today, not knowing enough from 20th's century history of Central Europe, protesting with the well-known anti-capitalist slogans... which frightens me.

Oooh, you've opened a can of worms there! But that's what politics is for, so here goes.

First, a generalisation - and perhaps challenge. I doubt you can come up with a single major policy area which has been successfully implemented and enforced, on a planet-wide scale. The nearest are possibly the nuclear test-ban treaties, and the emissions targets to address climate change. But both are contentious, limited, and flaky. The protection of the Antarctic mainland is a global policy, but only applies to a limited part of the globe's surface. Any more?

[As an aside - I really wish the work of this project (collective, not for profit) had been successful and we'd found ET. It would have been great to ask him/her/it for tips on how to manage communities on a planetary and wider scale.]

Now to pick out some points from your posts.

Communism and the USA. For a case study, I refer you to the relationship between the USA and Cuba. For the purposes of this comment, I'm referring to the Wikipedia article on the subject. "The United States government initially reacted favorably to the Cuban Revolution" [1959, by Communists led by Che Guevara and Fidel Castro]. But by 1960, the USA was arming and training refugees for a counter-revolution. That took place under President John F. Kennedy in 1961, with the "Bay of Pigs" invasion. That failed, but from 1960 to 1964, the USA imposed a range of sanctions on Cuba. THOSE SANCTIONS LARGELY REMAIN IN FORCE TODAY, though I believe some - such as the ban on direct air travel - have been partially lifted,

Excessive profit and Administrative intervention - I largely agree with you, but I don't think it should be an absolute rule. Take the current state of pricing for the domestic supply of gas and electricity: that will vary from country to country. Here in the UK, the wholesale distribution of power is largely centralised and managed, but the retail pricing and sale to consumers was privatised and devolved to, essentially, market traders. Then Russia invaded Ukraine...

The wholesale price rocketed, but the retail price to consumers was moderated by Government action, with limited success. This took two forms: the imposition of a price cap, and the direct distribution of subsidy contributions to individual consumers. Any shortfall was left to the (relatively novice) traders to manage. The result? About a third of the traders went bust. The price cap was pegged to the wholesale market prices, plus a levy to pay the costs of the bankrupt traders. And the subsidy didn't reach large numbers of consumers with non-mainstream power sources. The Government had picked only the low-hanging fruit. [I've asked on this board before whether the global price-fixing mechanism for gas prices counts as a true market, and somebody, I think Gary, directed me to a commodities market in Chicago. But I can't find that reference now]

And on a lighter note, local buses. These used to be municipal services, but in 1986 they were deregulated and privatised (outside London). The result was chaos: different companies competed for the busiest routes (with buses racing to be the first to reach busy bus stops, and scoop up the passengers), and less popular routes got minimal or no service at all. Today, it's been announced that buses in my area (West Yorkshire) are to be brought back under public control. Hooray!

PS: found a better source for that bus service comment. West Yorkshire bus services

That one's more explicit about the problems with the 'for profit' privatised services.

First, a generalisation - and perhaps challenge. I doubt you can come up with a single major policy area which has been successfully implemented and enforced, on a planet-wide scale. The nearest are possibly the nuclear test-ban treaties, and the emissions targets to address climate change. But both are contentious, limited, and flaky. The protection of the Antarctic mainland is a global policy, but only applies to a limited part of the globe's surface. Any more?

Uh, I haven't argued so far on a continent-wide or global view of economics. Things get very complicated then. Market liberalism between economically competing countries (governments) necessarily leads to major conflicts that market mechanisms cannot regulate. Unfair cut-throat competition. Unilateral, nationalist interventions. Monetary policies that do not pursue stability but national interests (targeted up- or devaluation). Currency wars. Many wars developed from economic competition, later diplomatic conflicts, in the end: war. All the global treaties you mentioned... They are respected as long as they don't hinder national interests too much. (e.g.: why is China expanding their research stations in Antarctica at a remarkable pace? Only for research? Or to place flag poles to prepare for a different future?)

Communism and the USA. For a case study, I refer you to the relationship between the USA and Cuba. For the purposes of this comment, I'm referring to the Wikipedia article on the subject. "The United States government initially reacted favorably to the Cuban Revolution" [1959, by Communists led by Che Guevara and Fidel Castro]. But by 1960, the USA was arming and training refugees for a counter-revolution. That took place under President John F. Kennedy in 1961, with the "Bay of Pigs" invasion. That failed, but from 1960 to 1964, the USA imposed a range of sanctions on Cuba. THOSE SANCTIONS LARGELY REMAIN IN FORCE TODAY, though I believe some - such as the ban on direct air travel - have been partially lifted,

I don't know much about Cuban revolution. U.S. policy (Monroe Doctrin) was to get rid of European colonial power's influence in the Americas. Don't know if the Spaniards still had influence after WW2 within the former Cuban regime. But today there are two things: (1) U.S. national interests. (2) U.S. political party interests. The former would seek economic collaboration. The latter seeks support from the many anti-Castro exile-Cubans in the U.S. These folks demand for a counterrevolution in Cuba.

Excessive profit and Administrative intervention - I largely agree with you, but I don't think it should be an absolute rule. Take the current state of pricing for the domestic supply of gas and electricity: that will vary from country to country. Here in the UK, the wholesale distribution of power is largely centralised and managed, but the retail pricing and sale to consumers was privatised and devolved to, essentially, market traders. Then Russia invaded Ukraine...

Almost every infrastructure (gas, electricity, roads, railway tracks, water supply) cannot be owned and operated according to market principles because there can't be a competition (natural monopoly). The best which can be achieved is to liberalize trade on... or usage of such infrastructures. The maintainer or operator of the infrastructure must be either a government controlled actor or at least the government must calculate and limit usage fees (not prices!) to cover operation costs and allow for a reasonable profit (difficult to restrict greedy managers or share holders of such infrastructure "companies"). Energy policy is also vital for each society; a national interest. Actors on wholesale markets should never have been allowed to procure two thirds of traded gas volumes from a single government-controlled supplier from Russia (as happened in Germany). Or to allow wholesale traders to sell half of their domestic gas storage infrastructure to Russia because that allowed them to negotiate the most economic gas supply deals. That was a suicidal energy policy, approved by stupid politicians (the positive view) resp. by unscrupulous, corrupt ones (the realistic view).

The wholesale price rocketed, but the retail price to consumers was moderated by Government action, with limited success. This took two forms: the imposition of a price cap, and the direct distribution of subsidy contributions to individual consumers. Any shortfall was left to the (relatively novice) traders to manage. The result? About a third of the traders went bust. The price cap was pegged to the wholesale market prices, plus a levy to pay the costs of the bankrupt traders. And the subsidy didn't reach large numbers of consumers with non-mainstream power sources. The Government had picked only the low-hanging fruit. [I've asked on this board before whether the global price-fixing mechanism for gas prices counts as a true market, and somebody, I think Gary, directed me to a commodities market in Chicago. But I can't find that reference now]

Putin's gas market disruption has also revealed highly risky business plans of retail traders (gas and electricity suppliers) who seemingly operated on short-term or even day-ahead wholesale contracts in order to service their profitable long-term customer contracts (e.g. 12 month price guarantees). Such risky business models must be punished by bankruptcy (the third of risky traders compared to the majority of more conservative ones). Wholesale markets (e.g. power exchanges) make use of extensive deposits to guarantee supply. Eventually something is needed for retail contracts too which would surely limit risky traders profits but increase average customer prices too. The government should only save destitute people with price caps. Personal responsibility for risky or wrong decisions must be maintained. If customers were not aware of such risks, then (immediately) more transparency is needed (either disclosure obligations for retail traders or mandatory hedging rules). If more risk means more profit or cheaper retail prices, then customers should know about their retail suppliers procurement policy (e.g. some independently evaluated and published risk level). I suspect these are phenomena that were solved a long time ago in financial markets, stock exchanges or investment banking.

I admit the risk of intentionally destroyed subsea pipelines (acts of war) is clearly outside the risk assessment of market participants. Government intervention, price caps, subsidies, even nationalisation of wholesale traders for a subsequent reasonable period of time (shock and adaption) was inevitable.