![]() |
|
Current Events Help understand the world by talking about things happening in it |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
![]() |
#11 | |
Doctor Wtf
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Badelaide, Baustralia
Posts: 12,861
|
Quote:
![]() ![]() Seriously: Force is inherent in a capitalist system. Robbery is the most extreme form of capitalism. Either a system allows robbery (with force) or forbids it (by threat of punitive force). Some force is inescapable. No market can exist without some kind of government intervention in the form of the regulatory environment that creates the conditions for the market to exist, such as banning fraud, stipulating accounting standards, and so on. I acknowledge that you were denying the appropriateness of bailing out sub-prime borrowers, presumably with buckets of cash, which is a very different kind of intervention from this regulatory framework intervention. But there is a wide spectrum of possible interventions that fall in between (eg. cutting interest rates, injecting cash for liquidity, etc) and your (EDIT) zero intervention approach doesn't cope with this reality. You say that markets always take care of themselves. Markets can be manipulated; they can swing wildly and irrationally, and real people get badly hurt by these swings. Here, I think, is the root of our difference. Maybe markets do always take care of themselves. I don't care about the welfare of the market per se. Markets don't have feelings, interests, needs, in anything but a metaphorical sense. They have no value in the giant moral or utilitarian calculation. They are only of interest insofar as they serve to advance human interests. It doesn't matter if the market can take care of itself. I care about taking care of the people. And I mean all people, not just brokers or investors or foolish mortgagees. BUT! I agree that most interventions, like price limits, quotas, subsidies, tariffs, and such, usually provide temporary relief at the cost of making the problem worse in the long term. Bite the bullet, get it over with. I am also opposed to middle-class welfare. I am opposed to rewarding greed and foolishness (it will just encourage more). And I don't have a solution to the sub-prime crisis that won't involve a lot of people loosing homes they can't afford. This is very rough on them, but ... in this case ... I don't support a buckets-of-cash bailout.
__________________
Shut up and hug. MoreThanPretty, Nov 5, 2008. Just because I'm nominally polite, does not make me a pussy. Sundae Girl. Last edited by ZenGum; 11-10-2007 at 04:43 AM. Reason: "Free Market" replaced with "zero intervention". |
|
![]() |
![]() |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|