That's interesting, because there is a very fine line to walk between destroying the competition by distorting the market and deciding that the state shouldn't let a company die. At least the U.S. got out of all this pure capitalist makeup. We can now talk about what we allow in competitive markets.
Yea, now we can't stomp around and espouse how Capitalism
doesn't need government oversite--Period! Personally, there's a
part of me that wanted the banks to fail; and see what arose
from the ashes, but that's another story. (Some banks like
Jamie Dimon's bank didn't need or want the money). I think
what bothered me about the whole process is the
economy is better for some people--people who have assets, or have skills that are currently in vogue. The average dude just getting by, and relying on interest from their cd(because they can't afford to speculate anywhere in life)
was not given a party gift in this recovery. There were a
lot of smaller banks who weren't in trouble. They weren't
in trouble because they were located in the right communities, and were very consertative. Meaning they only
lent to people with a lot of equity(sure bets), gave very little interest on any financial instrument, always charged fees for eveything, counted on the fact that a lot of people
just drop their money in the bank and never touch it, but
are Very nice, and remember your birthday--Hello Bank of Marin. I think Obama foresaw the future and figured the only lasting gift he could give to the middle class and the poor was access to the health care system--even though they
(the Republicicans) insisted on bringing in private Insurance companies?
Bank failures are endemic, regular, and predictable. 2008 was a slightly warped replay of many earlier events. (Who remembers Savings and Loan in the 80s?)
It would have been possible to restore confidence in other ways. Traditionally, good assets are collected into good banks, and bad assets are dumped into bad banks. The bad banks get thrown under a bus, and the good banks get full government backing until trust is restored. It's a tried and tested formula that has worked in other countries.
What TARP didn't solve was the endemic corruption and criminality that caused 2008. (Remember how some banks launched foreclosure farms that rubber-stamped property seizures - and sometimes stole property that didn't even have an outstanding loan?)
Unfortunately the corruption goes all the way to the Fed and the Congress, so a full restoration of Glass-Steagall, and jail time for the main perps, was never going to happen.
A few billion in 'profit' sounds like a lot, but it's a drop in the ocean compared to the incredible destruction and loss of economic potential caused by the persistent fraud, aversion to adult supervision, and deep-seated social irresponsibility endemic at all levels of the financial industries.
The US wasn't in purely capitalistic makeup to begin with. The US hasn't been a Capitalist country for a century. it hasn't even been a mixed economy for 40 or 50 years. America in 1890 was a Capitalist country.
The US is a hyper regulated, highly taxed welfare state. The US economy carries more regulations per capita than any other country on earth, and it passes more new regulations per year than anyone else.
You can't call a country in which the total government system extracts 40% of the economy - effectively a government system larger than the entire economy of Japan - a Capitalist country. It's not even close.
Nor can you call the world's largest welfare state, with the largest entitlement programs, a Capitalist country.
Where's the Capitalism? Capitalism requires, at a minimum, very low taxation, few economic regulations, strong protections on property rights, low friction for trade, and very little government intervention into the economy. The US has almost the opposite of that and has for a very long time.
> Capitalism requires, at a minimum, very low taxation, few economic regulations, strong protections on property rights, low friction for trade, and very little government intervention into the economy. The US has almost the opposite of that and has for a very long time.
Ahem. Your lack of perspective is painful. May I recommend [1], which ranks countries by both tax burden and government spending as a percentage of GDP. The US is in 60th place in terms of relative tax burden, and 46th place in terms of relative GDP expenditure. Of particular note: please look at the countries ranked below the US in either measure, and tell me which of those both fit your definition of "capitalism" and are places you'd actually want to live.
You can only say that US is "a hyper regulated, highly taxed welfare state" if your baseline of comparison is some wholly delusional Libertarian-land. No such place exists. In the real world of developed nations, keeping civilisation functioning requires both taxation and spending. By that measure, the US is relatively lowly-taxed, and miserably ineffectual at delivering a welfare state.
People have different definitions of what capitalism is, but they all share one characteristic: it's an absolute description, not one that depends on your policies relative to other countries.
Pointing out that the US has a more capitalistic economic than other countries currently enjoy is largely irrelevant in deciding whether or not it can be called capitalistic.
Libertarian land doesn't exist? You're openly admitting I'm right that the US isn't a highly Capitalist nation, and you're attempting to mock me for being right, hilariously. The US a century ago was a very low regulation, very low taxation, very high Capitalism country. Hong Kong at times has also come very close to qualifying for libertarian land.
As I noted the government's take of the economy is ~40%. That alone automatically disqualifies the US as a Capitalist nation. You can't have a government system that large and still pretend the US is a low regulation, low tax, small government, Capitalist system.
The countries you're comparing the US to, proves my point further: the US is under no circumstances a capitalist country. It's not even close. Comparing the US to middling, poorly run welfare states (the vast majority of all countries), is exactly what I'm talking about.
I never said the US had the worst tax burden. I never said the US government system extracted the highest % of GDP. I said the US was blatantly not a Capitalist country because of how large those figures are. I'm right, all those other countries you're comparing the US to are not highly Capitalist countries either.
Show me the tax burden as a % of GDP for the US in 1890 or 1910, or the government expenditures as a % of GDP for the same era. And I'll show you a Capitalist system.
You want an example of a low figure country I'd like to live in? Sure, Singapore, from your wiki list: 13% tax burden of GDP, and 17% govt expenditures of GDP. No coincidence they've enjoyed one of the greatest booms in world history.
I've been nothing but nice here, and I've been mocked, derided, and called names for it. For debating something as simple and non-emotional as economics, and I supposedly live up to some negative stereotype.
1) I'm not a libertarian.
2) I didn't argue anything inflammatory or negative. I've said nothing mean, at all. I said a highly capitalist country can't have high taxation, a large government, and high regulations. I'm absolutely correct about that. By definition, that cannot be a very capitalist nation.
