Quote from a_person:
LOL, Bush is no socialist, he is a committed free marketeer faced with the unpleasant fact that the free market theories work...until they don't, that deregulations and hands-off approach to the economy, business excesses and abuses lead to bubbles, disasters and meltdowns.
He's learning the hard way that business if not regulated will do stupid things and hurt itself and others, that for the sake of extra-profit and immediate gratification business will make every mistake possible and sacrifice their own future, that greed affects companies exactly the same way it affects individuals making them blind stupid and vulnerable.
I disagree with most of this.
First, Bush is not a "committed free marketeer", nor have we had a "free market" in literally decades. I'd say most of the people posting on this board wouldn't know a "free market" if it hit them in the ass.
Instead, what we call "free markets" are markets with all sorts of government intrusion. And therefore, it clearly doesn't work.
An example might be the banking system. This system is so distorted by governmental interference and regulations that I don't know how anyone could call this a "free market".
Let's take a simple example. FDIC insurance....the hand of government. And who can argue against it? Isn't it good for the "people"? But here's the point: FDIC insurance removes a check and balance....the informed opinion of the people. With FDIC insurance I don't have to worry about my money up to $100K...and therefore, I don't have to be concerned with the financial soundness of the bank, or in fact, what they're doing with my money. I'm no longer concerned with which bank I place my deposit with, which bank offers clear safety of principle. And, as a matter of fact, the market has almost ceased to function in terms of risk/reward as it applies to bank deposits. Because of this, banks can play the lending game, whether they are financially sound or not.
Stop and imagine how a bank might be forced to function if FDIC insurance did not exist. Depositors might be more leery. Riskier banks might have more trouble attracting deposits. This might keep the riskier banks from participating as significantly in the lending markets, etc etc.
Free markets in banking? Give me a break. This may already have more governmental intrusion than most industries today. Ever heard of federal bank examiners?
Does the FED play around in the interest rate markets every day, trying to control the direction and level of interest rates?
Who sets the rules on how much a bank can loan versus it's capital? LOL! It ain't the free market baby.
So let's just call it what it is: This was the failure of a mixed economy. This has nothing to do with the free market. Nothing to do with capitalism...which has not been on the scene in decades. All we've had is varying degrees of mixed economies. So what we found out is that mixed economies don't work. And at their heart, all politicians are socialists of one degree or another.
The solution to this will be MORE government intrusion. More government regulation. This will not work. More of what ails you will not lead anywhere.
What we are witnessing is a global swing toward socialism. This country, and it's citizens, don't have a clue what a free market is, what capitalism is. This is simply another step in the long term decline of America, led by the politicians, and willingly embraced by it's citizen sheep.
OldTrader