A Free Market Economy....

First It is not the American Public that allowed all these bailouts. Polling shows that around 80% of the population is against these bailouts. Unfortunately, the political options available didn't give us a choice to vote in better leadership. McCain Feingold, early voting, earlier Primaries, lax primary voting regulations and voter fraud that becomes easier under current campaign finance laws allowed special interests to pick our candidates for us before 75%of the population got a chance to vote. "Government is not the solution, Government is the problem." the more they involve themselves the more gets screwed up and the more they have to involve themselves. Banks would never approve the sub-prime loans that got them in trouble if the government had not forced them to do so under the threat of regulatory action if they didn't loan to those who were a bad risk. Freddie and Fannie were government run private institutions that had no regulations and paid no taxes. With the doors open to loan to bad risks they added pushing loans for more than the value of the homes. Add that to the normal flux of home prices which go from undervalued to overvalued and back in a cycle that averages 7-10 years and the crises was inevitable. overvalued homes coupled with 120% of value loans to people who couldn't afford them crashed into a wall when the market corrected and the value of the homes moved back to more realistic levels. We had to bailout freddie and Fannie they are government agencies. yes they are private businesses but they are run by the government and not subject to regulation or taxation. That makes them government agencies. Some help to the banks is necessary, government regulators put them in this position. The new "to big to fail" concept is all wrong. Government didn't cause the problems of the Big 3 except with the cafe standards and requirements to add equipment no one wants. If we want to help them we can eliminate the "unfunded mandates". AIG has had one set of crooks after another in charge. We put a bunch of them in jail already. If it's time to bail them out then it's time to jail some more. Printing all this money to fix the situation is the opposite of intelligent. Printing more money devalues the currency, drives up inflation and makes the financial situation worse. Reducing gov't debt and moveing back towards the gold standard is the solution. Finally, 2 years into his first term as senator, Mr Obama was ranked 2nd in the amount of money he had recieved from Frannie and Freddie. This was based on the total recieved by each senator in the past 10 years. Let me repeat that. In 2 years Sen Obama recieved more than 98 other senators over the past 10 years from Frannie and Freddie. Do you really believe he had nothing to do with the problem? Do you really believe he is trying to fix it? Do you really believe, he and his well paid friends, aren't sending that money to fill the pockets of the people running the companies?

there should always be a balance of idealogies with regards to the economies. History has shown us that much - on theother side China tried to adapt a purely socialist economy and that didn't work well for them either and have to practice free market ecenomics to a certain extent. it's not the amount of intervention that's the problem with the government but the kind of intervention it's doing. Intervention should only be there to protect people's rights and keep them from going hungry not used to coddle special interest groups.

I think that the free-market economy as Adam Smith envisioned it, really requires government not to intervene in the workings of the market, and just be an enforcer of a strong legal code. However, time and time again, not just during this financial crisis, we have seen how human greed can give way to common sense and ultimately, the welfare for society and the world at large. The market by itself would function perfectly. That is, it the market were a machine, devoid of human motivation. However, the market is run by people, and it is run by people who are motivate by greed, at any cost. States across the world must recognise that they have a role to play in regulating the market, but it must do so in a way that would balance market forces whilst protecting the common people from being victimized from greedy corporate bigwigs. To love freedom does not mean that one would be giving up on social rights and liberties. In fact, the way I see it, having more regulation than there is right now would increase our rights an liberties, to be shared amongst all rather than being unfairly concentrated amongst a previleged few.

This is a tough area. While I'm basically a liberal and I mostly feel the government should oversee certain areas, I actully am finding I don't always feel that way. there are definitely times, the government should keep out. I think the regulation from the FDR administration on banking should have been kept in place. We've had nothing but trouble since the repeal of Glass Steagall and I hope we get most of it back in the system before it's too damn late. However, we have a situation where I live that makes me feel just the opposite. The township wants to take an old factory and build a new 13 million dollar library. It would be an amazing building with lots of parking, a cafe, millions of books, tons of computers etc. However, the family that owns the factory wants 6 Million for it and the township hired an appraiser who said it was worth 1.4 milion. Now they are meeting to decide whether or not to use emminent domain to force a sale at a lower price. I hope we get a vote. I'll definitely say no to the eminent domain. That's an ugly business and I think it should almost never be used. That family owns the property and they have a right to try for whatever price they think they can get no matter how unrealistic. I kinda have to deal with government intervention on a case by case basis.

I am utterly amazed at how you can still consider the American system to be "Free Market" after all the manipulation of markets and bailouts for failing companies that your government has partaken in. Much of the interest rate policy that the Fed is responsible for implementing since October 2007 has been an absolute attempt at market manipulation. That is, while investors still believed that continually decreasing interest rates had an affect on the economy and the lending practices of banks. All the recent bailouts and government spending can be described as socialism at best. How is all that future tax payer money handed over to CitiGroup Yesterday representative of "Free Markets"? What about the bailouts being considered for the "Detroit Three"? How is future tax payer dollars used to prop up and only delay the much needed re-structuring of poorly managed companies with uncompetitive expenses and unrealistic compensation to employees, not to mention products that nobody wants to purchase, an example of "Free Markets"? Isn't the basic principle of "Free Markets" that the "Market" decides who survives? Hasn't the consumer, who has been voting with their wallets, already passed judgment on the dinosaurs known as GM, Ford and Chrysler? George Bush went to the G20 meeting two weekends ago begging for other nations not to close their borders to American business and walked away with a 12 month moratorium on "protectionism". But what about the so-called champions of the "Free Market"? Aren't the bailouts of the banks and potentially other industries protectionism? Weren't there enough large global banks left to do business in the "open" market? Didn't Spain's Banco Santander buy British bank Bradford & Bingley and guarantee all deposits? What worked in the U.K. couldn't work in the U.S.? What about Toyota, Honda, Nissan, BMW, Volkswagen, etc.? Have they not spent billions of dollars investing in production on American soil for the American market? Do these companies not employ large amounts of American workers? What affect does a bailout for the "Detroit Three" have on the Foreign headquarted auto manufacturers? How will these companies realistically be able to compete with the government backed/owned/operated "Detroit Three" in the American market? How does that environment resemble a "Free Market"? Sounds like protectionism to me. How long can the U.S. government continue trying to convince other nations of the validity of "Free Markets" when they don't bother to practice what they preach themselves? Signs already suggest that fewer are even bothering to listen. Your statement: "So we need to ask ourselves, are we lovers of freedom or are we simply peasants working for the government, hoping they will go after someone else instead of us?" I find this quite ironic. The American public has allowed their government to enforce servitude on future generations so that they, the ones ultimately responsible for creating the problems, don't have to change and clean up their own mess themselves. Passing the burden onto your children, grandchildren and further generations so that you can attempt to avoid dealing with the consequences of your actions is absolutely shameful.

Personally, I feel that we import too much and export too little. I also feel that it's important to keep unnecessary government intervention out of business. When my husband ran his construction business he spent way too much time obtaining permits and renewing licenses on the state, county and (multiple) township level when, in his opinion, a state license should have covered everything. That being said, some government oversight is necessary. I have never agreed with subsidizing farmers NOT to grow certain crops in order to keep the market from being flooded but, then again, it hurts all farmers if they can't get a decent price for what they produce. NAFTA hurt the sugar industry and, in return, hurt consumers. Some small businesses are supported by government grants and incentives while others are not. I agree that our Free Market system is corrupt...or inept... but I'm not willing to throw it all away either.

There is way too much interference, especially in the agricultural sector. While the government does give farmers subsidies for various reasons - we must also realize that the government is "making deals" with various foreign countries that directly impact the welfare of agriculture in the United States. While our farmers are paying record prices for fertilizers and chemicals to grow their crops, these same commodities are being sold to foreign countries for less.

The problem with free market economies is that they are not always 100% in the interest of the state. Especially when they drive labor overseas because of cheap labor and less taxation and when we are importing things that we could easily make in our own soil because it is cheaper. If the entire world was developed and as economically stable as the Western nations are, we really wouldn't see this problem. I believe in a Free Market Economy but I don't believe that it will be good for the US until the rest of the world catches up with us.