Failure has to be allowed and this is not in dispute. The point is that the lack of proper regulations and oversight creates a situation in which businesses not only fail but also hurt millions (billions) of innocent people all over the world. Why should computer programmers in Dallas or car manufacturers in Mexico lose their jobs just because some greedy bankers in NJ were giving away million dollar zero-down mortgages to people who did not qualify for even a car loan, greedy brokers in NY were packaging those mortgages into risky derivatives and greedy stupid analysts at S&P and Moody's were giving those worthless "securities" AAA ratings? The point is not that failure has to be allowed as it certainly does. The point is that "free market" leads to economic disasters affecting entire countries and is therefore a failed theory at least in its pure form. Oversight and regulations are needed to prevent the kind of failure that can bring down the economy of the entire planet for decades to come. Now that it has already happened the government is not bailing out failed businesses, it's bailing the entire world out of a disastrous financial calamity, the government is bailing itself out of their obsession with free markets which has turned out to be a costly and dangerous mistake.
Eh... a_person, has a filter on things "he doesn't want to know". He also missed out on Ron Paul - the BRAINS in US politics.
ok i respect your opinion and i think i see where you're coming from, although i read the situation a little differently. in my opinion, we haven't had a free market system in the US at any point during my lifetime (32). In many ways it certainly looks like one, but in the MOST important ways, it's absolutely not a free market. imo we're only in this situation today because the US government has demonstrated a willingness to backstop "too big to fail" institutions for decades. we also execute interest rate policy that distorts what should be recessionary circumstances into credit bubbles. given that foundation, i would say regulate it if you must, but it's not a free market you're regulating, nor was it a free market failure that necessitated regulation. regulation and central planning just beget further regulation and central planning. the free market has been so deeply obscured for so long, it just doesn't make sense to refer to a "free market" in the US as we're all accustomed to doing without consideration. what "free market"? i've never seen one.
So if a market succeeds, it's because the market works. If a market fails, it was because the government somehow regulated or affected the market in some manner. I'm sure you can see how intellectually dishonest this is...
bigdavediode, if a system "works" - it is because it is it has some cohesion. If you have a perfectly working radio - and then you open it out of curiosity, try to assemble it - and the radio fails - then you messed with it... it IS that simple. If a system works - no matter if it is perfect or not - i.e has some consistency and therefore some form of sustainability - then no matter how flawed it is - it works. Then after INTERVENTION - if it fails ... Well, it IS pretty obvious - isn't it? A strong system that can stand on it's own feet is something else - that is called Laissez-faire with regards to free markets and financial economy, and you need protection to keep it working - i.e from not being corrupted by intervention.
yes, that would be very intellectually dishonest. not sure if/how you read that into what i'm saying. just to be clear: it's not a free market. it wasn't a free market. if the market soars from here into colossal global greatness, it wouldn't be to the credit of a free market. if the financial economy wasn't imploding, it wouldn't be to the credit of a free market. basically none of this has much of anything to do with free market capitalism (in my opinion).
Not quite that simple. We're not talking about a radio, we're talking about something closer to dynamite. Useful when it works as you want it to but the one time it doesn't can kill you.
Hehehe, yes - only fair to compare it to something potentially dangerous and "explosive"... However - I think you could do it some justice and call it like the Long Island parallel or an ICBM.
more like the president who readily gave the shaft to the people who voted for him. with the help of the faux news propaganda machine <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/trWcqxrQgcc&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/trWcqxrQgcc&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object> it's too bad right-wing imbeciles are allowed to vote. if these maggots were kept from voting, the IQ in washington would go up exponentially.
The problem is about how they have been structuring the caucasuses and campaign structure to shut out any other candidates to have a chance. They are just a bunch of corrupt scoundrels of an elitist managerial state - and everyone in the US wants to be them - that's how aligned the US population is. Sad, sad fact...