this is beyond stupid…markets are inherently volitale…the only way to make them ’stable’ is for them to cease to exist as markets…try econ 101..along with history 101…truth 101…and finally logic 101…you have none of these things.

right4life on February 23, 2009 at 9:12 AM

Markets value stability above all other things, and in the current climate, the prospect of nationalizing the financial markets offers a promise of stability. Unfortunately, it’s the stability of the grave. The end of risk is also the end of achievement. It’s understandable that panicked investors might find a little dose of compassionate fascism preferable to the frightening prognosis of the banking industry. Some of the big market players may have reconciled themselves to the inescapable reality of a government-controlled financial sector – there is no serious talk of reducing regulation or government intervention, and absolutley zero chance of power-hungry Democrats voluntarily returning money from the government to the private sector, at least until the public has a chance to slap their hands out of the till in 2010 – and there’s no guarantee that will happen in 2010, or even 2012. Market analysts may have decided a complete switch to fascism is preferable to the current clumsy, fatally wounded hybrid system. If nothing else, complete political control of this sector might at least restore a small measure of accountability, since the Barney Franks and Chris Dodds of the world will have to own their mistakes, instead of being able to conveniently blame them on an increasingly helpless private sector.

I doubt any of these market analysts have any great love for the fascist system they are reluctantly accepting, however. Accepting the inevitable is not the same thing as endorsement, especially when it’s delivered at the point of a gun. In truth, the financial crisis represents an utter failure of the American political system, not its economy. It was caused by statist interference in a free market, forcing banks to make loans they never would have considered without government compulsion. There was resulting bad behavior from the financial industry, which the government did nothing to police, since it had abandoned its regulatory role to become a participant in the market.

The government took absolutely no responsibility for the resulting disaster, becoming the worst cancer to plague a free-market system: a financial entity that does not suffer for its mistakes, and therefore does not correct them. The political process utterly failed to enforce any accountability – not only were the architects of the disaster not voted out of office or punished with prison time, they were rewarded with increased power and influence. And now, the political system will short-circuit the painful adjustments that would be necessary to allow the free markets to metabolize the damage and correct themselves, as the political class steps in to absolve various politically-favored participants of any consequences for their actions. Capitalism thrives on a cycle of creation and destruction, but who’s going to sit still for the “destruction” part when they can howl for a fat government handout?

Doctor Zero on February 23, 2009 at 10:26 AM

you do realize that businesses have a little thing called ‘competition’ that makes it difficult to raise prices at will???

right4life on February 23, 2009 at 10:12 AM

Fascism is the explicit rejection of competition, voted into place by people trying to avoid the consequences of failure. After all, the possibility of winning implies the existence of losers. When the loses are a huge constituency of people who took out mortgages they never could have afforded, and speculated in a market they did not understand, aided by financial institutions hopelessly corrupted by their romance with government, it’s no surprise the losers have decided to call off the game, and threatened to burn down the playing field.

Imagine what the crucial early years of the 20th century would have been like under the current collectivist system. Could automobiles have replaced horses, in light of the staggering damage to the horse industry? Would a benevolent super-government have been willing to allow all those unionized horse grooms and street sweepers to suffer the loss of their jobs? And, of course, the government would have long ago moved to correct the injustice of only the wealthiest Americans owning horses in the first place, mandating horses be sold to the poor at far below market price, then shoveling taxpayer-funded subsidies at horse ranches to keep them solvent. Could the government have allowed this system to be destroyed by the introduction of the automobile, when it would have caused so much distress to the “hardest working Americans” trying to raise their families by working in the horse industry?

Doctor Zero on February 23, 2009 at 10:49 AM

I’m working to pay for myself..if I have some left over, I might give some to charity but don’t you DARE force me to pay for welfare recipients and homeowners who don’t want to get up off their lazy behinds and do for themselves. We have been silent WAY too long. No, it is NOT enough. It won’t BE enough until we stop allowing the government to do this kind of crap to us. And I for one am not going to sit there, “woe is me, what can we do, ho, hum….this sucks”. Hell no! Good thing this country didn’t say that 200 years ago. “Oh forget it, this is enough already.”

Un. Real.

SerenityFL on February 23, 2009 at 11:43 AM

Ah, but there is *another* concept that liberals do not understand: a free people cannot be compelled to be virtuous, and still remain free. If charity is a virtue, then you should be compelled to provide it. You need government supervision to provide it to the right people, anyway… left to your own devices, you might give it to some church that does not support progressive policies. You probably also don’t understand the historic discrimination faced by various preferred minorities enough to redistribute an appropriate portion of your income to them; and, unless you happen to own a bank, you’re not in a position to guarantee them access to low-cost, no-money-down, freely available mortgages so they can own homes.

You will be compelled to provide these things through taxes, which will be dramatically increased in the coming years, to pay for increasing needs of the worthy poor. If you do not pay these taxes as directed, you will be fined. If you do not pay the fines, you will be jailed. If you resist, you will be killed. Collectivism transforms actions that would be noble if an individual chose them freely, into tyranny. Socialism is a gun mounted on the side of a collection plate.

Doctor Zero on February 23, 2009 at 11:57 AM