I guess the Fed felt like it had no choice but to pull this latest giant intervention out of its butt at the 11th hour, but our national debt is twice what it was last year even without Fannie & Freddie included and now we're going to throw 85 BILLLION at this irresponsible insurance company because we don't know what else to do?
That decision was made by a guy who does not even work for a government agency--Benjamin Bernanke, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve. The Fed is a private organization supported by other banks. So where does he get off putting ordinary Americans on the hook for $85 billion without any discussion or oversight? At what point do these federal bail-outs lose all meaning? Isn't it kind of like the blind leading the blind at this point? Here we are, the U.S., in debt up to our eyeballs, but we step in and say "Don't worry multi-national corporation! We are here to save you! Have no fear!"
Rilly? How? How are we going to save them? I personally am having trouble paying for gas and keeping groceries in the house. Honestly, where does it end?
Is anyone else getting sick to death of these guys and their nonstop money dramas?
My theory on this is that it's probably a good idea to help these corporations, not because they deserve it but because the fallout on the American public would be so profound if they fail. However, the real problem that needs to be addressed is the climate that allowed these major corporations to get into this mess in the first place. People run corporations, and people make mistakes. Neocons would like to believe that all regulation is anti-capitalism, but I think we need to strike a happy median somewhere. We're paying the price for going too far in one direction.
"On November 4, 1999, Congress passed sweeping legislation that will dramatically reshape the financial services industry by removing barriers between banks, insurance companies, and investment firms which have existed since the Great Depression. President Clinton is expected to sign this historic legislation."
I think there's plenty of blame to go around. No one has been regulating financial markets for 25 years now--The promise has been deregulate, the market will correct itself, the free market is self-regulating, all that Reaganomics blather, for years and years. Democrats did nothing to reign in Fannie & Freddie because too many of them and their lobbyists were making good money on that stock before the bubble burst, but before that even happened, Republicans were singing the "free markets regulate themselves" mantra for most of a quarter century. Now we are seeing that theory disproved in bold strokes. Unfettered Capitalism leads to, well, this kind of a mess.
So there will be lots of time to assign blame as we stand in breadlines. But the real question is how is it going to get fixed? Right now the market is tanking again and credit is freezing up all over the world. Russia had to stop trading today because their market was in free fall. The AIG bail-out could help but that is by no means assured. Even an orderly sell-off of AIG assets could have long term devastating effects for the world economy. It bothers me a lot that our government just jumped in and took over a multi-national giant corporation with no input from Congress or the American public. How many of these bail-outs are we going to see this year?
I pretty much disagree. On a couple of accounts. First I am with republicans on free markets regulating themselves. The markets NEVER been COMPLETELY free in US, let alone the rest of the World. Letting markets free is scary as hell to any government, and I don't think we are going to see this, neither our children and grandchildren alike. The bottom line - this theory has not been disproved, cause it never been tested - and I doubt it ever would.
Second, before trying to fix something, it my be useful to try and understand WHY it does not work. Like you can change a bulb as many times as you want, and it's not gonna help if there is no power
Well, I agree that no one seems to understand what is going on right now, and that makes it a lot harder to fix, but I guess we disagree on the totally free markets thing. I can see why you would have that perspective, but since, as you say, it's never been completely tested, it's kind of like a perpetual motion machine. In theory some feel it should work, but it seems never to happen in practice--things go wrong way before we even get around to building it.
One thing I would like to see come out of this is more self-reliance and more people working for themselves. I'm about a millimeter away from doing that myself right now. I'm sick of working for big corporations whose values are opposite my own, doing work I hate so their CEOs can get richer. After my 2-day health issue in May I see that the "health insurance" that seemed so important and valuable before I got sick is actually rather worthless since 1) they don't want to actually have to pay for anything should you need to use the insurance, and 2) the medical care here is so bad it's dangerous to even use it unless you are about to croak.
So it's just a matter of getting my better half comfortable with the idea of me working on my own. Once we get mutually agreeable, I'm never going back.
It all happened before and was called the Great Depression. It was all fixed with regulation by FDR, and
ever since these regulatory safeguards little by little were dimantled with the mantra of the unfettered free market, with present day result. The S&L scandal of the 80's
was cause by deregulation. There is no mystery about it.
The problem with the notion of striving for a purely deregulated environment is that it could never happen. Nothing pure or perfect ever materializes on paper. Russia was a Marxist state, but never approached Marx's ideal vision for a communist state. The United States, the alleged champion of Democracy is not a pure democracy, not even close. We are also not a purely capitalistic state, and nor do I think that would be a goal we should try to achieve.
I tend to be a middle of the road kind of guy, though obviously people who know my politics will attest that I trust the left far more than I trust the right. I've often felt that the best economic system would combine the production capacity of the capitalist world with the distribution methods of the Marxist philosophy, so there could truly be a level playing field. I am realistic enough to understand, though, that the chances of that happening are slim to none.
I think I'd be happiest in one of those Scandinavian socialist sorts of countries where it's hard to get fabulously wealthy but you also can't fall too far. I just want to be able to do work I care about instead of selling my time. I don't care if I ever get rich or not, as long as I have a roof over my head, can see a doctor if I'm sick, eat regular meals, and have meaningful work I care about.
I know most people have lots of ambition though, so we won't be seeing such a system here anytime in the near or distant future.
Well, if you mean communists in Russia did not manage to make women a common property and failed to put EVERYBODY into labor armies (read concentration camps), you are probably right. I really doubt it would have changed the outcome it they managed
Other than that, they successfully implemented all of Marx's ideas, as far as I'm aware
Ooops, no. They failed the major thing, and that actually led to the crash - they failed to conquer the World...
Actually the world is rife with unregulated capitalism. Generally it is known as the Mafia.
I'm enjoying all of your posts. Pure capitalistic systems, pure communistic systems, and pure free market systems are all utopians. They just do not exist in real life. They all run up against practice, which alter their would-be pure, theorectical forms. The closest we can get to those states are mere approximations.
As to $85 billion bail-outs, only history can tell whether it was a good idea or a bad one. Notwithstanding what I just said, my thinking on this matter is in congruence with crashcromwell. I think it ultimately prove to have been good for the whole--government and the financial markets.
If all of what I said is unclear to you, do not fret, it's just as unclear to me. I admit that I am no expert in these matters. :lOl:
I think we have come to the conclusion that both far right and far left ideologies are just pie in the sky ideas that won't work.
We are witnessing a free market society collapse because of deregulation.
We have witnessed a communist collapsed because of a lack of initiative.
I believe it's time to give up on both of these far right and far left ideologies and strive for a middle of the road approach.
I am quite agree with your views Mr. Pgrundy. The Govt. is also playing in the hands of big corporations. Oh! its an election year too. Govt. is taking popular measures which will in turn ruin the economy.
Russia implemented Marxism successfully??? At what cost? How many millions of Russian people killed in Stalin era?
Countries like India adopted a mid path successfully since last 60 years now gradually it is opening up (in US pressure?).
"Rummel, 1990: 61,911,000 democides in the USSR 1917-87, of which 51,755,000 occurred during the Stalin years. This divides up into:
1923-29: 2,200,000 (plus 1M non-democidal famine deaths)
1929-39: 15,785,000 (plus 2M non-democidal famine)
1946-54: 15,613,000 (plus 333,000 non-democidal famine)
TOTAL: 51,755,000 democides and 3,333,000 non-demo. famine"
The data is from this site JYOTI.
Ye its a better idea to help out these corporate sectors. Because these corporate sectors are very helpful to fill he joblessness in the country. These corportae sectors also help in the development and progress of the nation as well through these cororate sectors people learn to leave a corporate world and enviroment.
by ga anderson 6 months ago
Peterstreep posted a thought about today's capitalism being different, (and the implication was that it is more dangerous), than the capitalism of the early 20th Century. Here is what he said:On the basics, I disagree, I think it is the same game, just with different players and boundaries. But in...
by John Holden 7 years ago
Is it not hypocritical and contradictory to demand free markets when firstly the UK and then the US rose to world dominance in manufacturing with extremely protected markets?Even now those who shout loudest in favour of free markets don't really want them - they still really want protectionism.
by Kathryn L Hill 7 years ago
Utopianism is the real crux of the problem: the insistence of attempting to establish that which can never exist. We are a society which is driven by hope. We are fed hope by every commercial, billboard and salesperson! We live for hope, thinking there is a magic fix for every ill. Government can...
by Grace Marguerite Williams 7 years ago
enterprise- capitalist system while many CONSERVATIVES do?
by Kathryn L Hill 2 years ago
Some say that capitalism pretty much causes *hell on earth*. How could we bring about *heaven on earth*, instead?
by Sooner28 7 years ago
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/17/world … odayspaperhttp://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/23/world … wanted=allEmployees work in dangerous conditions, are paid a pittance of a wage, and don't even have the ability to breathe clean air, and in some places, drink clean water. (American history...
Copyright © 2021 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|