Apr 13 2009
Relocated: Socializing U.S. financial services
Monday, September 22, 2008
Socializing U.S. financial services
This is really driving me crazy.
The basis of modern capitalism is the American and global financial system. How ironic that it’s now becoming socialized. Well, sort of socialized.
At least socialist states understand what nationalization means. It usually means increased work and/or risk for the whole population, paired with benefits for the whole population. Now, the U.S. seems to be capitalist enough to not want to completely meet these ideas.
Instead, we’re putting taxpayer dollars on the line, with no real benefit to the average American. Yes, we’re stabilizing the economy. If we (and particularly the Republican party) really believed in the free market, we would understand that while it may not be immediate, the market will eventually cycle, and make necessary corrections, and we’ll all be okay. Instead, we have lost faith, and put a bandaid on the market. In the meantime, until this gets sorted out, it has plummeted the stock market. We’re now taking over financial institutions left and right.
And is there any guarantee that we will all be getting houses, stock, or anything else? No.
This is getting ridiculous. Especially that Democrats want to set up infrastructure to do this regularly. What will it be called, the Ministry of Half-Assed Socialization?
Posted by Zach at 11:48 PM
Labels: economics, economy, mortgage crisis, politics
3 comments:
Eli Blake said…
How do you see Democrats as setting it up to do this regularly? It was John McCain who suggested the ‘MFI’ concept last week before quickly backing off of it.
I actually made a proposal earlier this week and am glad to hear similar things bandied about in the media lately that if a company required a bailout then the treasury department should retain a 20% stake in that company for the next 20 years. This would mean that the government (all of us, at least in theory) would receive 20% of all dividends paid by the company during that time, and when the 20 years was up it could sell the stock back into the market but benefit from any increase in the stock price that occurred during that time.
September 24, 2008 7:54 PM
Zach said…
Eli,
I had read (this was last week) that Nancy Pelosi et. al.’s objection was that the companies chosen for bailouts seemed arbitrary, and that if we were going to do this, we should set up the infrastructure and a special agency to do this regularly and fairly. Maybe that’s since changed.
As far as your idea, here’s my thoughts. I’m fundamentally opposed to any further socialization in the U.S. I think we already have enough of a broken welfare state. And I think that since we are the champion of capitalism, it goes against everything we stand for.
At the same time, if we are going to socialize the risk, we should socialize the benefits. Even if it meant annual stimulus checks not based on an increased deficit, but based on dividends/increased share prices of the stocks that we are all buying when the government conducts these bailouts. So while I’m fundamentally opposed to this whole concept, since it appears inevitable, I think that what you’re proposing at least makes sense.
If we’re going to go socialist, at least admit that we’re going in that direction, and do it right.
September 25, 2008 8:30 AM
Michael LaPenna said…
Socialism in full never works because it defies human nature. The market will stabilize eventually as always. We’ve all got to just live the best we can and shut up lol.
http://waxingpoetically.today.com
http://artfromtheoutskirts.today.com
September 25, 2008 11:02 AM
