Too Little Government Is Not The Problem
By gewcew23
@gewcew23 (8007)
United States
October 30, 2008 5:22pm CST
This discussion is for all of those anti-capitalist that believe this economic crisis was cause because of capitalism and free markets.
I am tired of being accuse of failing to understand the financial crisis resulted from too little government intervention not too much. The anti-capitalist either knows little if anything about Austrian economic theory, is a statist, and or fails to realize the American economy operates currently is not a free market economy. The founding fathers understood the dangers, failings, and shortcomings of a government regulated economy and strove to establish a true free market in the United States, free of government intervention. The 20th century brought America populism and with that the first government regulations on the market. May I point out that every great economic crisis happen in the 20th century and now in the early part of the 21st century.
If you still want to respond to me by saying that Austrian economics cause this crisis may I ask this question, how is more government intervention, fractional reserve banking, fiat money, government control of money and monetary policy going to save the day?
2 people like this
3 responses
@suspenseful (40192)
• Canada
31 Oct 08
I would think, being practical minded, that when you have too much government, you sort of stifle business, what with rules and regulations. I do not know about America, but in Canada, I got into making things and assembling them, mainly card games and games that required a game printed on a large piece of stiff board. I was discouraged by our present provincial government because it would interfere with the games offered at the big business stores. Well I then went into telemarketing which was all right because I was now working for these big businesses, and later on delivering fliers, until I went to the internet to make money.Not only that, it used to be that one had to have a license to work outside the home.
Now think of this as a writer who is still working to get her novel finished, sort of discouraging. They nave now stopped the licensing bit because it does no good to pay for the privilege of doing something that may not get any money until farther down the road.
So in my opinion, the less regulation the better.
1 person likes this
@Destiny007 (5805)
• United States
31 Oct 08
Too much government interference caused this problem, not to little.
The government mandated that banks abandon sound business practices and forced them to issue loans to uncreditworthy applicants.
0bama sued the banks who didn't do enough for the unworthy on behalf of ACORN, who he now tries to deny any involvement with.
1 person likes this
@morgandrake (2136)
• United States
31 Oct 08
I ask the question of how much government control is neccessary everytime someone says that we need more bailout and stimulis packages. It reminds me of flushing money down the toliet. Adam Smith, I am not sure what country he was from, did not believe in government regulation; or at least, that is the way I understand his theory. (I am a literature who has taken a few economics classes, so basically I can definitely be misunderstanding the whole issue.) And the way I look at these bailouts is that the rich want to make a BIG profit without taking any risk and think that the government should allow them to, plus bail them out when it goes wrong. And don't get me started on my lack of belief in tickle-down economics (ok, maybe it does tickle down, and my economic understanding is just too primitive to figure it out).
1 person likes this
