Quote:
Originally Posted by Rog
once governments intervene (with bailouts) does it cease to be a free market?
|
exactly. as I'm sure i've mentioned earlier, i'll argue that the result is closer to fascism than socialism.
Its important to put this in perspective. We bailed out the airlines right after 9/11 because we need airlines. We bailed out the big three american auto makers because the jackasses thought SUV's were the way to make them richer than God, because we need an automotive industry. We've been bailing out since Bush came into office. Seems like you can derive from this a few theories.
1. bail outs do not in themselves produce better economic conditions from which further bailouts are obsolete.
2. we assert the argument that anything government can do corporations can do better but then basically graft the corporations onto the governing body so that the result is a government-corporate complex of a many headed hydra against which no small businesses or middle class enterprise can hope to compete against. Which is why the whole fucking country is working for walmart.
So here's what free market theory says as far as I can see it. Bail-out fuck all and take this on the chops. Remove priveledges that allowed such detachments from reality, and place regulations that bring all the acid tripping harvard business school grads down to earth.
If that means we don't have banks for a bit. Fine. Serves us right for being uneducated about the practices of the banks we were patronizing. If that means we don't have cheap air travel for a few months? Great. Serves us right for allowing these douche bags such a choke hold on things. Have to buy german and japanese cars? awesome. Detroit has been responsible for stopping innovation and massive fuel guzzling for decades. Fuck em. Let the smarter, more ethical people come in their place. That's the free market. And I'm wondering how you would argue that such a process is inherently oppressive or evil.