An interesting conversation.
04-05-2011, 02:17 PM
Yes that's right.
The last time free market capitalism exploded the world's economy, there were only a few stark choices. Fascism, and/or communism, became empowered as alternatives to a failed capitalist model.
People now do not generally know how strongly the socialist model attracted the desperate people. In order to beat back the appeal of outright socialism, both this country and W. Europe, especially after the second world war against fascism, co-opted many of the proposed remedies OF socialism, as a kind of socialism-lite.
Just as eventually companies began offering the types of benefits and work conditions the labor unions were getting for the workers (to keep the workers from unionizing), so too did the capitalist West start to offer the kind of safety-net provisions promised by the socialist/communist movements (to keep the electoral prospects of socialists/communists in check).
They didn't do it out of socialist tendencies, at least in my view, but out of necessity. The Great Depression ruined the theory of classical economics (Ricardo, etc.), by proving its predictions utterly false, and also besmirched the reputation of laissez-faire economics.
Now we've seen it again, to the stated shock of such an advocate of the free market as Alan Greenspan, who admitted shock and grave error in his opinions that the bankers would never blow up the system by neglect and fraud, although he admitted they did so.
As I have said before. The root of the problem is the government. Litigators are singularly unqualified to know how best business should be run.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2014 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.