Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepy jack
It was the Bush Administration (mostly Henry Paulson) and Wall Street executives urging Congress to pass the bill quickly; not Keynesian economists. Keynesian economists wouldn't have supported handing a blank check over to Wall Street they would've demanded government regulation, something Paulson didn't want and was adamant on not having. If there had been regulation the banks would have been forced to start lending and getting rid of the bad debt and we wouldn't be in a mess nearly as bad a one were in now.
|
thats interesting, because i am pretty sure henry paulson is invested heavily into the idea of keynesian economics. how else do you propose paying for such a bill? we already have an agenda with the rougly 3 trillion dollars federal budget, where do you think that money comes from? obviously he has an alterior motive, and doesnt want the banks to have regulation with the money, but dont act like it isnt a keynesian at work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepy jack
I however never supported any form of bail out. The industries either should've gone into chapter eleven...which would have been very damaging to the economy but ultimately for the best considering what happened. What would have been better and preferable to me though if is they'd undergone temporary nationalization, until they were economically viable again. I also would've like to see a Glass-Steagall type act put back in place after these companies had been reorganized and the debt issues solved. If that act had never been repealed in the first place the financial industry wouldn't have crashed the way it did.
Also our market place is far closer to Keynes than the Austrian School. So trashing Keynesian economists and praising Ron Paul is a bit silly...seeing as one of those groups is operating within the actual economic structure as opposed to a Libertarian fantasy land. I wouldn't want to live in a country where they experimented with the Austrian school economics. If we' done that all economic activity would come to an absolute halt. A lassiez-faire economic system isn't the solution. Adam Smith's unseen hand doesn't exist as manufacturers were able to rig the market place and monopolies were created. Smith himself even warned about this but offered no solution. These kind of economic systems drift towards bigness and fewness and class systems become an inheritance. So basically you have the poor kids going to poor schools (if their parents can afford since a system like this privatizes everything including schools) and the rich kids going off to the best schools in the country meaning they inherit not only their parents extreme amount of monopolized wealth, but also the government because they're the smart and rich ones and they're able to get elected. Extremist capitalism ultimately leads to an Oligarchy and there's no way to defeat that except without some sort of Marxist revolution which would lead to another imperfect extreme political philosophy: Communism.
|
i praise ron paul as an individual, not as a idealist. i dont think that getting rid of the fed is a feasible idea based on how large our economy is, it would be a mess with too much on the line. regardless, it appears all economic activity has come to a halt, austrian economics or not. you pretend that government is any better about keeping monopolies from existing. you make it out to be with the lassiez-faire system the country would be this awful place where the poor have nothing and the rich have everything. scroll down to the part of your post where you say '5% of the current population owns 90% of the wealth'... sound familiar? maybe you havent been to an inner city public school but if you think that they have some kind of equality going on, your crazy.