Quote:
Originally Posted by loquitur
RB, you still don't get that these phenomena are to be expected? and that part of what caused the problem in this case is government interference?
|
What "government interference"? Where? When?
We gotten a lot of abstract moralising, and that's about it.
-----Added 15/9/2008 at 07 : 14 : 05-----
Quote:
Originally Posted by loquitur
RB, it's nothing of the sort. Part of capitalism, or neoliberalism as you call it, is that those who make bad decisions will fail. That's why I generally disapprove of bailouts, because they reduce moral hazard. Let me repeat that in a different way: failure of firms demonstrates the integrity of the system. You have it precisely backwards. Schumpeter would be wagging his finger at you disapprovingly.
|
There is nothing to be done.
There is nothing that can be done.
Nothing should be done.
You've completely missed his point by making this into a moral issue.
Neoliberalism is a peculiar variant of capitalism, which at the moment, is unraveling. "Free trade" has failed. The "3rd world" is not cooperating and the neoliberal world order is too weak to force it down their throats. It's become difficult to say the solution to today's problems is more deregulation and privatisation. What's left to deregulate or privatise? Don't like Putin? Talk to Jeffrey Sachs or his many enablers.
Neoliberalism is on the way out. Some new mode of regulation will replace it, and in fact, that mode of capitalist regulation is developing at this very moment. Thankfully, the passivity and negativity of neoliberal ideology (gummint = doubleplus ungood) tends to keep believers from participating effectively in debates about regulation.
Soldier on!