the US argument has been for decades that free markets are the best there is, but there seems to be some minor addons to that view. first, with "free markets" they basically mean the interest of big US corps and second if stocks don't do well the government pumps money into the system. this financial crisis shows clearly how vulnerable this so called free market is.
When the Fed took over, markets ceased to be "free". The printer of last resort was now the banker hocking bad debt at premium. Sound judgement and responsible stewardship slowly gave way to moral hazards and speculative banking. The local Credit Union can go under. But a Mogan Bank? Don't think so. The economic decline of this Country mirrored its moral decline - Gov officials bend to the will of a progressivily stupified public. The spineless plebs then rise to positions of influence and sow their seeds of entitlement and greed.
between all the illegal naked shorting... the PPT artificially keeping the market up and the derivatives bomb that is set and ready.... the only thing free about this market may be the free falling it does.
Your complaint seems to be with free markets in principle, not that the US is not as free a market as it used to be. Are you just a Euro-socialist-liberal or are you an all-out communist? Or maybe you are a fascist? Or maybe you are just a stupid America-bashing Democrat...
none of that seems to fit me. i guess i would describe myself as a creative, caring human. but maybe that is out of your scope ... it appears to me that the quote "free market" is abused big time by US politics and bigMoney to protect their personal interest.
Then why did you say, "the US argument has been for decades that free markets are the best there is" as if it is not your argument also? I may not agree with the erosion of the free market system over the years, but I certainly see the ideal as "the best there is". You don't seem to agree. My guess is that you are like Barak Obama, an ashamed liberal - a liberal who is ashamed to actually admit to being a liberal. In my experience this encapsulates about half of liberals.
i think that the basic concept of free market only works up to a certain size of companies, but once there are multibillion conglomerates the system starts to erode. so i guess i mean a very different thing, that is currently non-existing, when i talk about free markets. could you keep from analyzing my character in every post? i am tempted to reply the same way, yet i find it a little: ... boring. thnx.
I'll save you the effort. I'm proudly conservative. A little clarity in your posts would help. "Multibillion conglomerates" are inevitable in a free marketplace. So you think governments should break up "multibillion conglomerates" or nationalize them? You don't seem to be much of a free market advocate.
goodness. proudly conservative. well ... as long as companies grow to size that enables them to make politics on their own, there is nothing left of the free market place as adam smith and others had it in mind. so, if we have a system that allows heavy distortions by companies like microsoft, we'd better not advocate for "free markets". no, nationalization does not help at all. just destroys efficiency without creating value. there is no clearcut solution. but sizelimits would help. nevertheless, i am just pissed by the hypocrisy ... in case you think free markets are the best there is: the current crisis is made by the promoters of their version on free markets. pretty scary.
additional note. fox news is a bigger problem than george bush has ever been. bill o'reilly is a real, real problem for journalism as such - though i guess most real journalists would hardly call him one of them ...