Too big to fail?
An evil never comes alone. After forcing “Joe the Plumber” to bail out Wall Street, some in the government now plan to extend a helping hand to the auto industry. The rationale? You guessed it: “TOO BIG TO FAIL.”
John McCain correctly labeled Barack Obama’s “spread-the-wealth” tax philosophy as socialistic. And the most socialistic element of the next “New Deal” comes in the form of limiting the freedom to fail. The unspoken justification is the Marxist belief that technological progress automatically leads to the establishment of a more progressive social order. The natural next step: bureaucratic decisions stabilizing the market prices.
The unhealthy alliance of interventionist governments with obsolete industries and corporations threatens the stability of national economies. I grew up in Bulgaria under communism and continue to track what has happened to big organizations such as the Bulgarian metallurgical giant Kremikovtsi. Its smoking chimneys once were seen as symbols of ideological triumph. Market conditions have changed and now the only reasonable solution is liquidation. Unfortunately, what makes economic sense does not always bring about political advantages. Special treatment of Bulgaria’s Big Industry keeps draining the economy of juices that are vitally needed in so many other areas.
Not only does state sponsorship waste scarce resources, it creates a vicious cycle affecting both body and soul. It breeds corruption, restricts competition, discourages experimentation, diminishes innovation, slows down productivity growth, and results in lower living standards and moral decay. Bureaucratic intrusions aimed at easing the pain from the process of creative destruction has contributed to the slow pace of transformation in post-socialist Bulgaria. And congressional bailouts in the United States aimed at reducing the suffering from the expected slowdown will only protract the healing process.
On more than one occasion during 2008, Washington went against the historic wisdom of its people. They accepted from the start the creative destruction of capitalism, suffering the short-run pains to reap the long-run prosperity. Economic freedom in the United States is a key ingredient of a package that has launched the former backward British colony to its current place of global supremacy. Today’s “losers” happen to be well organized in industrial cartels and labor unions. They get connected with party elites and find ways to rig the political system in their favor. It has to stop. American and Bulgarian leaders would do best to discard the “too big to fail” arguments and let market participants either stand on their own feet or crumble.




Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Special Student Discount for WORLD!








Click to Print
Include Comments










back to top31 Comments to “Too big to fail?”
The natural next step: bureaucratic decisions stabilizing the market prices.
Just like that well-known Socialist, Richard Nixon.
Remember this?
Wage and Price Freeze
Everything old is new again.
Report comment to moderator
Oh good. More casual slinging around of the words “socialist” and “Marxist” by someone who has no idea what they mean.
Simple facts: Collecting taxes and using some of the revenues to aid poorer people when they set about doing specific things, such as going to college, is not socialism.
And while it is true that Karl Marx saw technological advance and social advance as going hand in hand, there’s nothing inherently “Marxist” about that view. A lot of other economists, philosophers and sociologists share it while not embracing any particular tenets of Marxism.
Report comment to moderator
ideology is a poor guide to economic policy.
the present banking bailout has nothing to do with ideology or “too big to fail” or any other reason presented by Paulson. Simply put, its one last chance for Bush and friends to empty out the treasury.
gov’t intervenes; the question is for who do they intervene.
Report comment to moderator
“I grew up in Bulgaria under communism and continue to track what has happened…”
Steve G – This would indicate to me that he does know what he’s talking about, & not slinging the words around casually.
Report comment to moderator
Too big to fail, indeed. GM is, in fact, making their case that they are too big to fail, on their own website, aimed at the general public. http://www.gmfactsandfiction.com
The thrust of their argument is that if they fail, life-as-we-know-it will end, so Hey, Mr. Everyman, “…Send a letter to Congress now to tell them you support the American Auto Industry.”
You can read more about it here: http://janeqrepublican.wordpress.com/2008/11/12/gms-newest-lobbyist-you/
IMHO, it is a shame that the American automotive industry, beholden to the UAW, has become a huge burden on our economy. Yet no amount of blame shifting or catastrophe predicting can change the simple truth that the American automotive industry is in need of a massive and complete overhaul. This moment in history could be the perfect time for just such an overhaul. A painful, extended, necessary overhaul. Not a government financed and chaperoned, tiptoe thru the tulips, “overhaul” in name only. No one ever said CHANGE would be easy.
Report comment to moderator
Karen O
Living under state directed capitalism aka an eastern European communist state does not make one an expert on the proper US response to the present credit crisis. My wife lived under communism should I ask her what qualifies as a socialist style intervention as opposed to a liberal-democratic (ie capitalist) intervention? One does not become an expert due to location.
The dissimilarities between 1980s Bulgaria and present day America are far greater than similarities. Most importantly, in Bulgaria bureaucratic capitalism failed whereas here the free market has failed. Although the North American automakers have made some lousy decisions, the credit crunch propelled by the banking and securities industry has led to the current particular problems facing GM. Perhaps the banking industry should use some of their bailout money to loosen the credit strings and get the wheels of commerce moving — ie if we are going to go Keynesian lets do it right.
Report comment to moderator
#5 GM’s argument is essentially the same as the banking industry; the difference may be who has the more important friends. Paulson is a former Wall Street banker so naturally his friends (and Bush’s) got his attention and your money.
it is a shame that the American automotive industry, beholden to the UAW, has become a huge burden on our economy.
Managerial incompetence can not be passed on to the union. The union has done an excellent job representing the needs and wants of the workforce however management has not managed (innovation, marketing, adjusting to new market forces etc). Don’t shift the blame.
Yet no amount of blame shifting or catastrophe predicting can change the simple truth that the American automotive industry is in need of a massive and complete overhaul. This moment in history could be the perfect time for just such an overhaul. A painful, extended, necessary overhaul.
One can say the same about the banking industry.
Report comment to moderator
HRW – I was really just commenting on SteveG’s statement – “More casual slinging around of the words ’socialist’ and ‘Marxist’ by someone who has no idea what they mean.”
I’m not sure what I believe is the best route for the U.S. in regards to the auto industry.
Report comment to moderator
Years ago the Boards of Directors of the Big Three failed their companies by agreeing to such conditions to provide health insurance to retirees, among other things. “Not under my watch”. They wanted to avoid union trouble. Today the companies are paying for it. And the unions wanted to provide benefits for their immediate employees. It didn’t matter that the money wouldn’t be there.
On a large scale, this is what’s happening to SS & medicare. Remember, a Ponzi scheme always fails.
Report comment to moderator
In both cases its a case of bad management. Instead of setting aside adequate funds each year to address future needs, the car makers and the gov’t wait for the need and pay as they go. There’s nothing inherently or economically wrong with providing these benefits, but you need to manage and plan properly.
Report comment to moderator
There was a “Social Security Lockbox” until Lyndon Johnson made the SS fund part of the overall budget. Now, every time a politician says “Social Security Lockbox”, he’s lying and he knows it.
Report comment to moderator
The Canadian equivalent of Social Security is run at arms length from the gov’t but legislation doesn’t permit it to invest in equities. Both the Canada Pension Plan and Employment Insurance must report to parliament in the same matter as a fund or plan reports to a firm. Although there are lingering doubts due to the demographic bulge ahead, the plan and fund is fairly solid.
Other than to brag, I mention this because it illustrates the absence of ideology as a deciding factor. Conservative and liberal gov’ts have over time continued to manage long term benefit obligations. Its good management and the ability to have a long term plan which is necessary. CEO are too frequently occupied by short term stock prices and not long term viability. In a similar manner, the US House Reps are in constant reelection mode and are not providing long term vision. Of course the Senators are supposed to do this but have failed. Again not ideology but management.
Report comment to moderator
“…whereas here the free market has failed.”
I disagree, the free market didnt fail. The free market was manipulated and abused irresponsibly (most notably by Greenspan, and piggie backed by the greedy CEOs and politicians). The govt now attempting to play bailout only drives us further from a free market.
Considering that Republicans have acted like democrats in this, what do you think a Democrat controlled govt will do now? More of the same junk.
Report comment to moderator
Karen: Regardless of where the author grew up or under what system of government, to say that it’s correct to label Obama’s tax plans as “socialistic” is simply wrong.
Socialism means the government (i.e., “the people”) own the means of production. You don’t have a farm, the people (government) have a farm and you get to work on it.
The reason people can get away with calling Obama’s philosophy socialistic is that socialists do generally tend to agree that capitalism concentrates wealth in the hands of a few, and believe that the wealth should be redistributed. When Obama uses phrases like “spread the wealth around,” it’s easy for critics to pounce on the superficial similarity and use the scary word to try to trick low-information voters into voting for McCain.
But the measures Obama proposes to accomplish this wealth spreading are nothing like actual socialism. Socialists attempt to resolve the perceived imbalance by taking business ownership out of private hands and making it all state-owned. Obama only proposes to use some tax revenues to fund programs aimed at helping lower-income citizens overcome disadvantages.
What he’s proposing is not different in principle from what the U.S. government has always done. He’s just revamping some of the details. It isn’t socialism.
Report comment to moderator
To HRW at #7:
“…management has not managed (innovation, marketing, adjusting to new market forces etc). Don’t shift the blame.”
This is an interesting claim. Not based on any facts that I can detect, Have you read the trade magazines about what is coming out of Detroit these days. The product that the American auto industry is producing is every bit the modern contender for the consumer market as what the Asians and the Europeans are producing.
It is true that the American automakers are still suffering from decades of being hamstrung by UNIONS in previous decades and the negative press and public opinion that followed. Will you defend the very entities that were so entrenched in their own “wants and needs” that they willfully brought down their own industry in the 70’s? Remarkable.
Report comment to moderator
In response to Thorn: I don’t feel that all of the blame being shifted to Alan Greenspan is totally fair. This is a guy who grew up as a member of “The Collective” (Ayn Rand’s inner circle) so I find it odd that all of these people turn around and champion him as this masterful manipulator of markets when that goes against the core of his ideology. Should I point out that many of these problems are because of policies he spoke out against? No one voiced problems their with Greenspan during the Clinton years. If anything, the dot-com boom and his forewarning on that went unheeded and could have avoided many of the problems we later ran into. For some reason the media feels the need to find one particular person to blame…how convenient that they choose a RETIRED, right-leaning public servant to pin everything on. Go figure.
The blame we’re seeing after through this crisis is part of the problem. There have been very, very few people who have stood up for the free market system and called this out for what it is: too much manipulation forcing things that shouldn’t happen to happen. To be honest, Dick Armey is the only name that really comes to mind. Everyone is to blame, including as voters for sending irresponsible people back to Washington time and time again. The 2008 election was a casebook example. “When times get hard, look for the person who complains the loudest.” has become our knee-jerk response and our public officials seem to be reflecting that.
As for the article itself, it’s hard to argue with the logic here. Regulation leads to more regulation…go figure. This seems obvious enough on its face until people start offering bailouts like this. A GM crash would be a terrible thing to see but its nothing we haven’t been threatened with in the past. Haven’t we already been through this? Have we learned nothing from the bailouts of the auto industry in the past? The ONLY way that American auto-industries will succeed is if the automakers start really making alternative energy a priority. People will start to shift to American-made cars if American-made cars start to use less energy. If they’re cheaper to own and operate, more and more people are going to buy them. That’s only going to happen if the companies realize that the government is not going to bail them out the next time they fail.
I felt like this article hit on something at the very end where it talked about the end of lobbying, but “How?” would be my simple question. Do we need to regulate lobbying on Capital Hill? No. We need to start electing more honest officials. We need to start electing people we can trust. Here are simple words to tell incumbents when they want to be reelected: “Thanks, but no thanks.”
Report comment to moderator
Why does the government feel it has the right to tell us what to do with our money? I certainly do not want my tax dollars going to support a company simply because they are “American” and it is my “patriotic duty” to keep jobs on our own soil. It is one thing if private investors think it would be worth the risk to help these auto companies out. It is completely another to use my money without my consent to do it. While a private investor would write up a contract with terms that the company would need to meet in order to keep receiving money, the government just hands these companies a get out of jail free card. If Ford were to use this money to become more efficient it would be one thing but there is no guarantee that they will and no incentive for them to do so. If they know the government will always bail them out no matter how many times they fail why would they work to improve?
A company needs to be able to fail to create a more efficient market. If we reward companies for using faulty business practices and continually treat them like infants it will only encourage inefficient behavior. Yes, the company could use this money to fix the problems they had, and in so doing better the economy, but that’s not a risk I’d be willing to take if I had the choice.
I would suggest two solutions to this problem:
One, in the future discontinue such practices. It is foolish for the government to keep handing out money like we have a surplus in our economy. First of all, we are in trillions of dollars of debt. Second of all, it is a bad investment. It would be better for everyone if the government invested tax dollars into profitable endeavors. (That doesn’t feel as nice in the short term, I guess).
The second solution would be for the government to create a contract with the companies that ask for bailouts that requires them to meet certain standards. The companies would have to show an improvement in areas such as efficiency and income in order to keep receiving money. Otherwise, we are just pouring water into a leaky bucket.
Report comment to moderator
You can easily argue that the contracts made in the 70s, 80s, and 90s with UAW regarding wages, pensions, and other benefits has put GM at a competitive disadvantage. They misread the market and thought they could make these extravagant guarantees to the union, which in recent times has shown to be farcical.
Why have German and Japanese automakers not seen the same pressures over the last several years that GM has? I would assign this to the fact of not only their different product-line, but also where they locate. German and Japanese car manufacturers set up in the south, which has been traditionally less friendlier to labor unions than northern states.
There’s no getting around the figure that 1/3 of all cars “produced” here (produced in parentheses due to it being an essential misnomer–the components of the cars come from varying locations, it’s more accurate to say assembled) are from foreign-owned manufacturers.
In the long-run, bankruptcy would be good for GM, and will help save GM, by getting rid of its inflated cost structure. United Airlines is a good example of this.
Furthermore, Professor Tokarev was correct in labeling these policies ’socialistic’. They resemble the influence of socialism, particularly Fabian Socialism. Remember, Lenin spoke of the Commanding Heights of industry (credit, finance, etc) as a prime target for government control/intervention in bringing about the ideal state.
Report comment to moderator
15 — Of all the autoworkers unions, the UAW is by far the most complicit with management. Renault, VW, Volvo etc all face far more powerful labour groups and legislative interference yet VW and Volvo have managed to turn out high quality products which continue to turn out a profit. Even in North America, the Canadian Auto Workers (CAW) is by far the most militant industrial union with its Oshawa local as the most militant local yet for years the Oshawa plant received upgrades and investments. Toyota, Honda and soon Hyundai all have major assembly plants in Ontario. At present they are non-unionized but still subject to stricter legislative regulation.
The success or failure a plant does not rest on the union. The investment climate, ownership and management are far more important. The major factor for continued investment in Ontario has nothing to do with unions but rather investment climate — solid infrastructure, stable gov’t fiscal status, and gov’t covers most health care costs. The resistance of Americans to gov’t health care coverage is to the determinant of their industry.
Report comment to moderator
Long-term contracts and liabilities, made to unions, certainly harm the viability of American car manufacturers. Now, there is a difference between union strength and the strength of regulations. One could argue that the former is a much stronger force in inhibiting production, as the withdrawal of labor is a much more powerful force than the sanction of regulation.
I’m not sure if I can agree with your analysis that Renault faces a stronger union presence than GM. When UAW leaders call a strike, most, if not all, union-workers join the strike. The union organization in Europe is much weaker and less cohesive.
Recently, for example, the French Renault labor union called a strike to protest job cuts at French factories, and only anywhere from 10%-20% participated.
http://wot.motortrend.com/6280102/industry-news/french-renault-workers-strike-to-protest-job-cuts-ahead-of-paris-motor-show/index.html
The pay structure of the Big Three makes adverse economic shocks much more pronounced than similar shocks to other car manufacturers. Just look at the pay gap here: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/SR9v0tlHxsI/AAAAAAAAHvM/U1TRb_tdUas/s1600-h/paygap.bmp
You can’t blame a faulty product line, poor quality, or anything else outside of organized labor pressure for the abnormally high wages that exist at the Big Three.
Report comment to moderator
The most tragic possible outcome of the current crisis would be for the parties at fault (as well as our government) to walk away from the debris having not changed their ways. We are in this mess because of the irresponsible practices of large corporations. These culprits must be taught a lesson. However, I do think that there is a small thread of truth to the “too big to fail” mindset, provided that we add an important modifier: “too big to fail abruptly.”
We all know that businesses rise and fall over the course of time without incident. People find new jobs and life goes on. However, with a corporation as large as GM, the issue is not so simple. If GM were to suddenly disappear from the market, around 250,000 people would immediately lose their jobs. Also, there are many workers who would suffer because their industries are intertwined with GM’s (car dealerships, auto detailers, etc). This would create an employment vacuum, throwing hundreds of thousands of people at the mercy of today’s meager job market. If GM were to suddenly fail, the repercussions would be staggering.
Now, I am not arguing that we should hand GM a blank check, give them a pat on the back and hope for the best. As I said in my first sentence, this would be the most irresponsible thing that we could do. If we are to offer any sort of bailout, it must come with conditions that force GM to conduct business in a responsible manner. Also, our bailout should be designed not to necessarily save GM from failing, but to normalize the rate of decline, giving workers and the market time to land on their feet. GM is not “too big to fail,” but it is “too big to fail abruptly.”
Report comment to moderator
I don’t understand how GM is not failing at a ‘normalized’ rate? Is there something that is causing an abnormal rate of failure? Market participants have known the state of GM for a while now–it’s not recent news that they make horrible investment and management decisions.
Milton Friedman was right in his view that most disagreements among economists result from differing views of the short-run v. the long-run (He explained this in the first chapter of his, unfortunately, not widely read ‘Dollars and Deficits’). People favoring the short-run are distrustful of the market process, since the market process takes a longer time in coordinating massive changes. Whilst, the machinery of government may turn the wheels of industry through centralized command in the matter of days.
But long-run consequences are either defined away as ‘neglible’, or as problems that further justify government intervention.
The most tragic outcome of this situation is not for GM to get a bailout without conditions, but for the US federal government to micromanage business trends. No government that has sought to predict, or to influence, business trends has been succesful. I see no reason for a departure from this subtle truth.
Of course people point to various industries that got their start with the help of defense spending. However, we did not spend those funds with the purpose of establishing niche industries within the U.S., but rather we spent those funds to the end of defeating Nazi Germany and then the Soviet Union.
We’re only delaying the inveitable if we are to prolong the existence of GM and the other Detroit manufacturers. The best outcome would be for a private equity firm to buy out these companies, reorganize them, resist union influence, and come back with a product line American’s like.
The important thing is to make sure GM’s capital (how measly it is) is reallocated in a manner that provides for the best long-term outcome. Unfortunately, the most efficient process of doing this (Chapter 11 Bankrupcy) is not as smooth due to the dysfunctional credit markets. So, as opposed to a “bridge loan to recovery”, we should offer a “bridge loan to bankruptcy”.
Report comment to moderator
I am afraid I do not see why bailing out the auto industry is so widely considered vital for our nation. It seems to me that, did we need our auto industry so badly, it would not be in its current state. If people are not buying American cars, a government bailout is not going to change anything.
If they wish to persuade American drivers to buy their cars, the auto industry is going to have to produce automobiles tailored to American demand. True, they may not have the money to do that. Also true, we should not be paying for an industry to formulate a product that we like. We purchase the finished product, if it is worthy. To insist otherwise is not at all fair to the American consumer.
Report comment to moderator
To Elizabeth at #23.
The reason that the success of the automotive industry is so closely tied to our nation’s economic success is the vast web of suppliers and vendors that serve them. If GM goes belly up and declares bankruptcy, many smaller American businesses who can ill afford the losses will be stiffed for outstanding debts to the tune of millions of dollars. The big vendors get paid first, if at all, and the little guys get nothing. To illustrate the point, Mr. Small Business Owner who has been fortunate enough to have part of the contract to produce floor mats for GM finds himself sitting on unusable inventory that he cannot sell and a huge account rreceivable that will not get paid. He either goes bankrupt, letting go of all his employees; or he manages to absorb the loss, but passes the expense on to the customer and possibly cuts back on wages or lays people off as a result.
I know these things to be true. My family’s business has experienced this in the past. Because we have very little debt, we have been able to weather the storms, but many businesses aren’t so lucky.
That said, I oppose a government bailout of GM. The resulting bankruptcy will be painful and will affect our economy in ways most people don’t realize, but it will be a strengthening experience in the long haul.
Report comment to moderator
#20
Interesting links — who knew French workers to be so passive. Renault is an auto maker in decline perhaps the workers are resigned to their fate.
A CAW response to GM;
http://ago.mobile.globeandmail.com/generated/archive/RTGAM/html/20080606/wgmstaff0606.html
yet its not the worker’s who led to this crisis, they worked hard. Buried in the article is the record of the Oshawa plant
The closing was announced one day before the annual J.D. Power and Associates study showing that the plant ranked highest among all GM truck plants in terms of the quality of the vehicles it produced last year. On Thursday, the annual Harbour Report on assembly plant productivity showed that the Oshawa truck plant was the second-most efficient GM pickup truck plant in North America. As measured by hours required to produce a vehicle, the plant was 10 per cent more efficient than GM pickup truck factories in Silao, Mexico, Pontiac, Mich., and Flint, Mich.
GM management made poor decisions and misallocated the use of its highly efficient labor force
The pay grid you linked to includes total compensation which I take to include health benefits. Here again you see the problem the lack of gov’t paid universal health care poses for US corporation. I would be interested in a comparison between US and Canadian GM workers total compensation. They have similar hourly wages but health care costs differ. Secondly, there is no indication whether this pay grid displays only the average compensation for hourly paid union workers. If it includes any non-union managerial type positions this may indicate a different problem at the Big Three.
Report comment to moderator
“In response to Thorn: I don’t feel that all of the blame being shifted to Alan Greenspan is totally fair.”
Im not shifting all the blame to him either. Please note I said that greedy politicians and CEOs piggy backed. You mention the tech bubble, and whether intentionally or unintentionally, Greenspan, to lessen the blow from that crash, opened the flood gates to the housing market. All the greed flowed into it. Expontentially compounding the problem and not actually addressing it. At least greenspan has been willing to admit he made mistakes. The biggest being his naivity over greed, when it was staring at him in the face during the tech bubble.
The debt comes callin when the money runs out. The housing market has crashed.
So how do you fix it? Well the greed needs to go away. The thinking that we can be back to 14k in the DOW is fruitless if your trying to rebuild the greed. To me, bailing out failing banks, firms, auto industries, or any other business is attempt to simply do just that. But it wont work.
Greenspan was smart enough to realize he had to funnel demand elsewhere. So he chose the housing market.
The government, should do two things. 1. stabilize the borrower while still requiring repayment 2. find an industry worth investing in and minimize the greed.
The best upcoming industry to me would be environmental. As Obama will push for it anyway. But at the same time, you cant up restrictions on the industry. If you force that too hard too soon, youll only collapse your economy.
But the demand is there…not quite housing market demand as it once was, but its a reasonable option. I’m sure there are others. You have to find a demand and stability that responsible investors will easily invest in.
The biggest problem with bailouts though, is that, the greedy and stupid are still in play. There is no quick fix to the economy, so we might as well take our lumps, learn our lesson, and look foward to a long term stronger economy.
Report comment to moderator
If the auto industry is too big to fail, then why is it? If America is losing business in the auto industry due to competition from other countries, then we should stop complaining and start joining the competition. Our auto industry is becoming more and more out-dated with so many being reluctant to pursue alternative energy or more fuel efficient cars.
Why should the American people bail out the industry when it was the American people not giving the industry the money to begin with. We love the idea of globalization and a free market until it starts affecting our own pocket-books then we scream “government intervention!” and “help!”.
My question, is if we did help the auto industry out…what about the sales? Just because we give money to the auto factories does not guarantee people will be even more inclined to buy a vehicle. What then? Will the government offer to buy all the fuel consuming SUV’s because we “feel bad?”
I do, however, disagree with labeling Obama a socialist. People are quick to throw that word around. It is becoming increasingly difficult to tell if it is because someone truly believes it to be socialism or if it is because of bitterness that their candidate did not win. Even if Obama WAS socialist…the American majority voted for him.
Report comment to moderator
I agree. When has government intervention done any long term good for the market?
Report comment to moderator
I agree. When has government intervention done any long term good for the market?
Report comment to moderator
Government control has only provided more opportunity for certain individuals to manipulate the system and gain more advantage than others. The free market economy doesn’t allow that. It’s a natural process of checks and balances (supply and demand) that sustains a healthy economy. Even though, this means the economy undergoes recessions, infaltions and other imperfections it also means that a laissez faire policy enables the economy to recover naturally – certain business fail, some people are disadvantaged but this leads other companies to be more innovative and competitive which ultimately leads to a more efficient market
system.
When the governemtn isn’t around to be a babysitter to inefficient companies suddenly there’s no safety net and more people have more incentive to adapt, learn and succeed beyond their circumstances.
Report comment to moderator
There is no such thing as a “free” market. Its a political economy construct much like the social construct of Rousseau. The market is created through gov’t forced contract law and gov’t maintained stability which allows for long term expectations (most of the time) in currency and price. The question is not whether the gov’t should control or not control the markets but for who the gov’t should control the market.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!