James_The_Stampede wrote:Eh, I don't believe this at all. The whole idea of "trickle down economics" is absurd..
I read this part and felt an urge to jump up and explain how Reaganomics is different from real free-market capitalism, but then I read more of it and then read your next post.
James_The_Stampede wrote:What do I suggest? Letting the market do it's thing and giving them exactly what they've always wanted (Unregulated, unsupervised capitalism with no government intervention) . Fail hard enough and maybe they'll reconsider their approach.
Then I thought "sweet. I'm not alone here."
I just never want to hear these "Free market" capitalists ever cry about socialism again. The market did it's thing with no oversight and it fell on its ass, now they want the government to help out these rich assholes. Healthcare for everyone? That's ABSURD! Bailouts for failed corporate ventures? GENIUS!
Now I'm confused...
Commander_AK-47 wrote:Good point, but if we don't help the rich people we will all eventually fall.
This kind of thinking is why capitalism has a bad name. Despite criticizing unregulated markets, what James_The_Stampede described WAS capitalism, in its purest form
(though I have problems with how he implies big companies want free-markets. They don't. They want the State to protect them with things like... bailouts.) If the government didn't create such a massive moral hazard with the system this wouldn't have happened. Protecting the rich only makes things worse and gives Socialists more reasons to bitch about capitalism. We don't need "rich people." We need free competition. And nothing kills competition more than the government nationalizing the losses of private businesses, all at the taxpayer's expense.