(October 28, 2010 at 4:08 am)ib.me.ub Wrote: The banks failed and the Govenment bailed them out!Yes, and I believe they had no right to bail them out. So many small businesses fail each year, and nobody gives a crap about them...the government doesn't save them. Why? Because it's the natural whim of the market; evidently something was wrong with the business plan of the company. Several big businesses fail each year as well (Woolworths in the UK is a good recent example), but the government isn't called in to bail them out either, for the same reason.
Quote:Well if you cannot see that the public & private sectors are so intertwined now, they cannot be unwoven. If you cannot see this, you cannot see the forest for the trees!Please explain how the sectors are "so" intertwined, and how they cannot be unwoven. If I create a company, it is in the private sector. By your argument, it would also be in the public sector ("so" intertwined), but that simply isn't true. Perhaps you think that the government being a client of a private sector business means that the sectors are combined...well you'd be wrong. The government itself is an entity that is no different from any other consumer in the free market. Many government contracts go out to private companies; if the government didn't, they'd be in a nasty position.
Quote:Why did the Governments bail out the banks then Adrian? If the public & private systems are seperate, it should make no difference. The fact is, they rely upon one another. If one fails then so does the other.The government bailed out the banks to protect the economy. By doing so, they overruled the market and sent a message to all businesses: "Hey guys! If your business is so successful that it affects a large proportion of the population, and you start failing, we'll bail you out!". Great. So now what we've done is given all companies an excuse to be lax about their own self-regulation. In the free market, nobody guarantees your survival but the consumers & shareholders.
Quote:Banks using a Capatilist sysytem which requires growth. Growth that is impossible to sustain forever. If the banks are using a different system or are not a public entity, please fill me in.I never said a company needs growth forever; that would be absurd. It is of course, very good if the company can boast continual growth over the years, but this is rarely the case. Usually you have some bad years, and some good years. If you can perfect your company with self-regulation, you can make some guarantees about the state of your growth (i.e. you can take several years of loss, and still make it up).
In theoretical models of capitalism, you would probably end up with some "steady state" after while, with the consumer base split between several different companies. In practice, this never happens, because all companies are run by humans (and humans make mistakes).
Quote:Yes, really simple. Where do you keep your money, under you pillow.It's a simple enough idea. I never said it was simple in practice. We do rely on banks to an extent, but far too many people view them as a place to store their money without any bad things happening to it. These people have no clue about what a bank is, or how the market operates. There is always risk involved with any transaction on the free market (or any market, you could argue). People who ignore the risk and then complain about it afterwards do not have any respect from me.
