In the March edition of Portfolio, John Cassidy details how the federal government (and taxpayers) essentially bailed out and nationalized much of the banking sector over the past 6 months.
Thus, while the current administration says it will remain hands-off during the credit crunch and bursting bubble, the truth of the matter is that hundreds of billions of dollars have been lent to failing institutions at rock bottom rates by various taxpayer financed institutions (e.g. FHLB).
In the end Cassidy muses that “in order to save capitalism, it is sometimes necessary to administer a stiff dose of socialism.” This is odd if for no other reason then the fact that Cassidy spent the entire column discussing precisely how government intervention caused a misallocation of assests through poorly developed investment strategies (e.g. subprime loans).
Also, if you missed it yesterday, Speigel ran a piece ominously entitled “Worst Financial Crisis since 1931? German State-owned Banks on Verge of Collapse.” You will never guess what poorly developed investment strategies they were involved with and the ballyhooed solution to the quagmire (hint: it rhymes with axepayer).
And an added bonus, today the British taxpayer was effectively called into action to subsidize a large failing bank, Northern Rock. What incentives does the government have to effectively manage it?
See also: The Theory of Money and Credit. Via Mike Ewens
{ 2 comments }
I’ve read an interesting argument somewhere: the whole point of the free market isn’t in success, but in failure. A smart manager, can manage an organization effectively in just about every system. The question is what happens when the manager is not smart, and the point of the free market is that it lets him fail while other systems do not. It means the free market roots out idiots and motivates the others to try to be smart.
Therefore, letting it go when it works and stepping in when there is trouble essentially removes the whole idea of the free market.
There is nothing special in letting something go free as long as it’s successful, generally smarter Communist states tended to do that too. What makes the free market special is letting something fail when it does not work, that’s the very idea. Stepping in only when it fails basically creates an oligarcy. I mean if I gamble in the casino and if I win, I get to keep it, but if I lose, somebody will help me out, then I’ll probably get rich really fast.
Hehe that is a leftist ‘critique’ of free markets, that it’s a system of ‘failure’. Wow, profound indeed. Except the significance of this is not that which they wish it had. It’s a refutation of their own dull-witted schemes.
Comments on this entry are closed.