Politics
Out of context: Reply #8975
- Started
- Last post
- 33,772 Responses
- Khurram0
Raf i just want to get something straight with regards to your dogmatic free market extremism...
Say there's a government in a country voted in by its people. And the country is facing economic catastrophe, such as that Argentina (once a potential super-power) face at the beginning of the 20th century.
Do you ultimately think that the only morally "liberal" freedom loving thing to do would be to allow the economic catastrophe to happen, thereby retarding the country's economic progress for a century (ala Argentina) allowing the other nations in the world to outstrip it in all indicators of power?
I only raise this point, since reading many economic analysts over the last years, including those of the Chicago school bent, have said that it has been the government internvention which prevented this current economic crisis from turning into the Great Depression of the 1930s when the government didn't intervene.
What say you - mass poverty/suffering/inhumanity a price worth paying to preserve the free market?
- 1.The crisis was caused by govt interventionism in the 1st place (ie.Community Reinvestment Act). It removed the riskraf
- ..necessary for lending institutions not to give bad loans.
raf - 2.We don't know what would happen without bailouts. Poland is one of the of few countries in EU that didn't bail out banksraf
- You didn't answer the question.DrBombay
- out banks, despite plans. It's the only country that registers growth (about 1%)raf
- What I'm saying, mass poverty wasn't coming about, but is a good argument for scaremongeringraf
- You didn't answer the question. D-Khurram
- this argument is old. your using hypothetical mass poverty/suffering/in... no one wants that, but not bailing out doesnt lead to that********
- lead to it. so i say no dont bail out. then we can see what happens.********