Capitalism and free enterprise, dirty words...
Here's something YOU might find interesting, Dav:
SSRN-Not What They Had in Mind: A History of Policies that Produced the Financial Crisis of 2008 by Arnold Kling
1) No one is too big to fail. Let the free market work.
But does the Federal Government have a duty to steer the country away from a major depression and the resulting poverty and crime? Or is a major crime wave, poverty etc. all part of 'reset' process.
2) Limiting corporate growth. -- I am surprised to hear a conservative say this. But the notion that a corporation can grow to such a size that it's actions, though not criminal, are contrary to the 'greater good' is one that I think a lot of people are becoming aware of.
- Do these new Banking/Wall Street regs really protect us?
- Weren't they written by legislators who receive huge contributions from Banking and Wall street?
- I find it interesting that Health Care debate rages on, while this passes with relatively little fanfare.
- Are small business and consumer interests being put ahead of corporate growth. Trickle down economics doesn't work when wealth becomes frozen at the top.
What you're talking about (I think) is a form of consumer protection--keeping the public safe from a de facto monopoly by one company or a group of companies who have grown into a position where their failure would cause a potential breakdown in the system.
How can we "let the free market work" when there is a ceiling on corporate growth?
This contradiction is a microcosm of the general failure in contemporary economic dialogue, i.e., most critics of free market capitalism don't actually know what it entails. That you would presume the existence of a "free market" in the US is evidence that you don't actually know what it is.
In reality, the US is a mixed economy with a foundation in Keynesian economics; Keynesian policy, being the utter antithesis to free market economics, is in no way representative of free markets.
I am sure that you will find that a lot of conservatives are not for totally unrestricted capitalism.2) Limiting corporate growth. -- I am surprised to hear a conservative say this.
"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"
Cicero Marcus Tullius
Gramm?Leach?Bliley Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Gramm Leach is a big component of the deregulation we refer to.
The Makeout Hobo is real, and does indeed travel around the country in his van and make out with ladies... If you meet the Makeout Hobo, it is customary to greet him with a shot of whiskey and a high five (if you are a dude) or passionate makeouts (if you are a lady).
2) Not necessarily. Free market doesn't mean corporations be allowed to run the Government and/or engage in practices that could harm the public.
That's the question. How do we allow for both. Free enterprise and sensible consumer protection. If tax-payers are footing the bill for bad behavior, are we be protected? Once you label a company too big to fail--meaning the resulting failure cause devastating ripple effect, then hasn't the company become a potential liability to the public--the burden of risk of failure outweighs the good and services they provide.How can we "let the free market work" when there is a ceiling on corporate growth?
This is a popular extremist or idealist view of what the free market 'should' be. This absolute 'free' market is totally unworkable--a business and industry anarchy where anything goes.This contradiction is a microcosm of the general failure in contemporary economic dialogue, i.e., most critics of free market capitalism don't actually know what it entails. That you would presume the existence of a "free market" in the US is evidence that you don't actually know what it is.
A very limited understanding of the U.S. economy. The notion that even the smallest regulation means the absolute free market doesn't exist is moronic.In reality, the US is a mixed economy with a foundation in Keynesian economics; Keynesian policy, being the utter antithesis to free market economics, is in no way representative of free markets.
Think of a flee market where every vender is allowed to set up where they want. They would all place their booths right at the entrance. Then no customers could get in to view goods. No sales would be made. The market would collapse. There needs to be some organization and protection of the consumer.
Free market does assume a level playing field. "Too big to fail" gives an unfair influence to those companies.
I think people who grew up during the Great Depression might have a different point of view.
I agree with what you said about "too big to fail" but the fallout from a major depression has to be considered, and, to the extent the government can help communities survive...