All financial institutions to be run by the federal government.

[Avinash_Tyagi]

Kasz216 said:

Avinash_Tyagi said:

ironman said:
You sir, have no concept of how the free market works. If a business is shady, people will stop purchasing their product. A business that is legit, will get more business. And that is why I am against government control. They just mess up the way the free market works and clogs up the system. Tell me when the government has ever done something efficiently and correctly? I can site a few examples to the opposite. The DMV, Wellfare, Mass transit, Taxes, just to name a few. The kind of regulation the government is doing with the banks is actually going to do more harm than good. See, they are now forcing banks to make MORE bad loans (to fill a quota) in exchange for tax money. I say let the damn banks fail, let us go through a few months to a year of really tough stuff, and lets learn from the mistake. Of course, with Government at the reigns, history is destined to repeat itself.

First off in europe there are many examples where government involvement has been a success, resulting in situations which the free market could not bring about, just shows that well designes government systems can work well.

Also you're a fool if you think that the free market will result in beneficial outcomes on its own, first off there is the fact that information is not always shared equally, and then their is the propensity for the market to become irrational, this current crisis is a good example of the irrationality of the market and of information not being equal.

Also during the Depression many of the banks were allowed to fail, guess what we had a decade of economic collapse, you really have no idea do you, allowing the banks to fail would be the dumbest move ever, without a functioning financial market money would not flow through the economy, people would hoarde their cash and unemployment would skyrocket.

Except Europeon countries also see less economic growth and higher rates of unemployment.

Less government intervention largely coincides with larger government growth and lower unemployment.

Denmark aside due to flexicity which actually has a lot less government controls in a lot of areas in europe and even the rest of europe can't copy.

So it really depends on what you want your economy to do... much better with slight chances of systematic failure... (though the US economy is still better then most europeon economies GDP wise) or safer with slower growth.

The saftey of the section option usually seems mitigated by the growth of the first option though... such growth more then making up for what would be lost.

Yes, but in europe, the social safety net protects people who are unemployed better, and while they may have less economic growth than in the US, its hardly a big problem, since some nations in eruope have higer GDP per capita than the US, much higher in some cases, like look at Norway, while others are around the US, like Ireland, and Switzerland, doesn't sound like they are suffering over there, In fact if you use the Human Development index measure, US trails much of Europe, Canada and Japan, also you assume that the higher growth would make up for what is lost, if the economy went into total metldown like it would have without the massive government bailouts and interventions, then what would have been lost would have vastly outstripped any gains