Originally Posted by spence
I think the bailout was probably necessary to stop a cataclysmic chain of events. Even I didn't realize the degree to which our economy was channeled through so few bottlenecks.
The entire "economy" is not channeled through whatever few bottlenecks to which you refer. Had the banks that were bailed out not been bailed out, there would have remained a large "economy" that survived the "cataclysm."
That being said, the bigger issue seems to be the one way valve attached to the system. Taxpayers bail out the banks, but seem to have little leverage after the fact.
Taxpayers have the same or lack the same "leverage" before bail outs as they do after. They have the power of the vote and their individual and collective initiatives. Those powers, forgive my constitutional tourrettes, would be far greater if our Federal Government was restrained by constitutional limits. With the present juggernaut of Federal power colluding with big money and "managing" the "market," the taxpayer loses much of the power granted to him by the Constitution and becomes the ultimate bottleneck through which unconstitutional federal mandates, regulations, and agencies are funded. And the contributions to that Federal Government by big monied banks and businesses gets them immunity from failure or the pork to fund worthless Solyndras.
I don't think there's really a desire to destroy capitalism. The debate in this country isn't about free markets vs socialism. It's more like a fantasy free market vs a managed market. Even the most liberal of proposals don't look much at all like real socialism. Given a Republican President and Congress our economy will still look more like a managed market than a true free market.
One of the stated desires of the protesters, at least by those who have spoken, is to eliminate capitalism. As for the debate "in this country" by which I take it that you mean beyond the protesters--there really doesn't seem to be a debate. If you pose a debate between free market vs managed market, that's more symantic than real. All markets are "managed" by those acting within the markets. The degree of freedom is proportional to how much managing is done within the market as opposed to how much regulation and restriction is imposed by external force, Government. If the market is "managed" by government, it is not a market in the traditional sense, but a command economy. Obviously, all markets have had external force applied, as well as internal forces within, so none has ever been totally free. Not as a whole. The degree to which there are free transactions within a "market" (transactions freely performed between buyer and seller) will determine how free a market is. Modern socialism comes in many forms. Just as there is no totally free market, there is no totally pure form of "real" socialism. There are degrees of socialism.
If anything, this movement -- in the US at least -- is fueled by a simple frustration as is the Tea Party. Like the Tea Party the crazies get most of the attention, but the undercurrent is very similar.
If the undercurrent is very similar, why is there such a difference? Are the objectives of the Tea Party and the Occupiers similar?
Somewhat tongue in cheek, but still to the point. I think the protesters think that the game has become increasingly rigged. Some of this might be to naivety of those just entering the workforce and some could be the expectations we put on ourselves.
"Increasingly" rigged? So, is there a certain amount of rigging that is acceptable. But, then, beyond a quantifiable amount, at that point we rise up and say no more?
I guess the bottom line is if you believe our current system (government and private) is really best positioning our resources and people to achieve in this century. It can't all be left to the free market, much of which has long since sold out a lot of the USA in the name of shareholder value.
"It," whatever that is, has never "all" been "left" to the free market. The market has never been so free that "all" was left to it. And the market is not a living thing that can sell out anything. It is the interaction of individual people and entitities transacting in different self interested ways and selling and buying individual comodities most of the time outside the ken of shareholder value. Nor is the USA an entity that can be sold by a market.
The bottom bottom line is that we need transformative leadership. While not the disaster some would make him out to be, Obama has not lived up to expectations and the GOP field isn't offering anything really new.
-spence
|