1 - “Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner defended his approach to fixing the country’s economic mess Sunday, saying ‘the market will not solve this’ while disclosing a bailout fund for battered banks has $135 billion left and might need more.” [ http://tinyurl.com/cnolrj ]
So Geithner, if the “market will not solve this”, then why is the government entering the market to solve this?
2 - “‘We came through a period where people borrowed too much and we let our financial system take on much too much risk,’ Geithner said.” [ same link as above ]
So Geithner, if “…people borrowed too much and… (took) too much risk…”, then why did you also say this today, "‘Banks need to show more willingness to take risks and restore lending to businesses in order for the U.S. economy to recover from the recession,’ Geithner said, ‘To get out of this we need banks to take a chance on businesses, to take risks again.’” [ http://tinyurl.com/cy2d7r ]
So, people took too much risk so we’re in this mess, so, people should take more risks. And the market is not going to fix this, so, the government is going to go into the market and try to fix this. [^o)]
The government is not getting into the market. They are quickly working on taking over and controlling the market. Geithner is saying that a quasi free market cannot fix this, but a centrally controlled market can fix it, and that the banks need to take risks that are government approved.
It makes perfect sense when viewed through this rabbit hole. (sarcasm?)
The way I’m looking at this is, yes, the government does get into the free market. I even make the argument that the Soviet Union had a free market. The difference between the Soviet Union and the U.S. when it came to the free market though, was how much the State was and is corrupting the free market. I see the black market as the free market, it’s just the free market has been pushed into such an existence (of course it depends on grounds of property rights as to what is truly criminal and what is not criminal in a black market. ex. Cigarettes in prison have been considered something you could find on the black market and get, but are exchanges of cigarettes really a crime against property rights? no). What the state exchanges in the free market is criminal actions and thus how it corrupts it.
Yes and the only contribution they will bring to the market via these controls will be criminal (the taking over; stealing aspect). For the state doesn’t produce anything to give to the market except manipulations of the market that is already here. We can also perceive this in terms of how much freedom is in the market as opposed to control mechanism in the market. But the free market forces will still work thus why in the Soviet Union I heard stories about long bread lines. Supply and demand was still in play.
The risks that lead up to this were government approved and encouraged. FDIC, SEC regulators had oversights that they could have used already in the books, historical precedence that Congress will bail them out if they are big enough (large debts), and the Federal Reserve’s lowering of interest rates to keep the investments going into the futures creating a housing bubble, to name a few of the State’s approval that already was. But yes, they, the State, want more control (nationalizing corporations is, as we all see, on the rise).
I think we are basically agreeing, maybe? I’m just coming at this from a different perspective and hopefully I clarified my view. Thanks.
We are agreeing. They “get” into the market only to control it, often through corruption and criminality as you stated. We just started at slightly different points, but ended at the same place.
I wouldn’t mind more clarification on this for I advocate that when the government “gets” into the market it is only done with corruption and criminality. You state “often”, which lead me to believe you think that there is something the government does that is lawful. I see no way for a government to even begin acting in the market unless by criminality. The government officials (administrative state), politicians, and those government officials appointed by the politicians have to steal to pay their paychecks to even work. I know of no government official that only works by volunteering their time and thus putting food on their table by some other tangible productive means outside of their government job. So the government doesn’t even get off the ground, so to speak, and work unless they steal their income through mandated taxes.
So maybe you meant to be more firm in your statement other than stating “often through…”? For I see only through corruption and criminality.