Thousands getting sick.
Millions becoming unemployed.
Would having the government totally staying out of this and letting the free markets work their magic lead us to the fastest recovery for this crisis?
Thousands getting sick.
Millions becoming unemployed.
Would having the government totally staying out of this and letting the free markets work their magic lead us to the fastest recovery for this crisis?
Fastest yes. Most beneficial no. Millions would die. There would be incredible death rates in developing countries.
Economically, it would be interesting. Nothing would shut down perse, but important countries like China and India would be decimated.
But yes this would all be over by August but death rates would be around 7-8% worldwide and millions more would be seriously affected.
Every time we buy into “free” markets, the price goes up.
Also our advantage over China is based on our people. If we let them die, any low-tech, non-diverse country may overrule.
L L wrote:
Would having the government totally staying out of this and letting the free markets work their magic lead us to the fastest recovery for this crisis?
Free markets would actually lead to a very fast recovery. We'd go about business as usual, almost everyone would get infected in a very short timeframe, millions would die, and then it would be over. But "fastest recovery" probably isn't the best metric for success in this case.
L L wrote:
Thousands getting sick.
Millions becoming unemployed.
Would having the government totally staying out of this and letting the free markets work their magic lead us to the fastest recovery for this crisis?
Many people, both conservative and liberal, are paranoid about becoming infected and will not be willing to go about business as usual, regardless of what the government tells them.
L L wrote:
Thousands getting sick.
Millions becoming unemployed.
Would having the government totally staying out of this and letting the free markets work their magic lead us to the fastest recovery for this crisis?
Yes, that's already happening. We need to get the FDA out of the way so people can get access to the drugs and equipment they need.
Germany are testing half a million a week for covid.
Socialized medicine.
Depends, letting the market fix every assumes you're willing to let everything find its natural market price. Including people's lives.
If we left this to the free markets, they would collapse completely, leading to complete financial anarchy. Our markets are based on a complex financial system that has consistently proven to be unable to take a punch. A crude example of this would be real estate. You would think that losing a few months of rent would not be a big deal for a landlord. But that landlord has a mortgage to pay and will default without those rent payments. The bank that holds the mortgage cannot go a few months without those mortgage payments because those funds are either borrowed or depositor funds. If the bank cannot cover its loans or pay back depositors, you have a financial contagion that causes the entire system to collapse.
This is why we are having bailouts and the Fed pumping trillions into the economy. Free markets cannot handle this at all. It takes massive government intervention to save free markets from collapsing on itself.
Healthcare and free markets just don't work. There's no money to be made in expensive medical treatments for the old, vulnerable and poor who are, statistically, the ones who need the most expensive healthcare.
Should we leave them to die, thinning out the herd so the rich and healthy like you can prosper?
Hardloper wrote:
L L wrote:
Thousands getting sick.
Millions becoming unemployed.
Would having the government totally staying out of this and letting the free markets work their magic lead us to the fastest recovery for this crisis?
Yes, that's already happening. We need to get the FDA out of the way so people can get access to the drugs and equipment they need.
It works very well with farming also.
FREE MARKET REFORM would allow new medical resources to quickly come into existence. New healthcare providers, clinics, drugs, equipment, vaccines, tests, and private methods of validating all of the forgoing, would quickly come on-line without big government in the way acting like it owns our bodies and wallets.
Precious Roy wrote:
The bank that holds the mortgage cannot go a few months without those mortgage payments because those funds are either borrowed or depositor funds. If the bank cannot cover its loans or pay back depositors, you have a financial contagion that causes the entire system to collapse.
This is why we are having bailouts and the Fed pumping trillions into the economy. Free markets cannot handle this at all. It takes massive government intervention to save free markets from collapsing on itself.
The reason banks don't have enough cash reserves is because they know they'll be bailed out by the government if sh!t hits the fan. The government has set a clear precedent that they will bail out banks if their risky behavior backfires. Bailouts, and government assurance, incentivizes this behavior. It's the exact opposite of a free market.
Hmmm. The same market that goes from "greatest economy EVER!!!" to "OMG! It's going to be an effing depression!!!" after 2-3 weeks of reduced revenues? Sound like we really need a fundamental re-set of the world's economic structure and not just moving money around and consumerist bulls*!t.
I know this is a meme floating around but, why are individuals supposed to have 3-6 months of cash on hand for hard times but, corporate structures collapse with frightening speed after a few weeks of no business? To me, it appears that we need way more fiscal regulation and accountability.
Tax cuts will cure anything.
St Reagan said so.
Wrong Target wrote:
Precious Roy wrote:
The bank that holds the mortgage cannot go a few months without those mortgage payments because those funds are either borrowed or depositor funds. If the bank cannot cover its loans or pay back depositors, you have a financial contagion that causes the entire system to collapse.
This is why we are having bailouts and the Fed pumping trillions into the economy. Free markets cannot handle this at all. It takes massive government intervention to save free markets from collapsing on itself.
The reason banks don't have enough cash reserves is because they know they'll be bailed out by the government if sh!t hits the fan. The government has set a clear precedent that they will bail out banks if their risky behavior backfires. Bailouts, and government assurance, incentivizes this behavior. It's the exact opposite of a free market.
Yeah and the Fed has already set a precedent of doing everything they can to fight inflation and unemployment. They actively discourage businesses from holding onto lots of cash and then we act pissed when those businesses don't have huge "rainy day funds" at times like these.
Wrong Target wrote:
The reason banks don't have enough cash reserves is because they know they'll be bailed out by the government if sh!t hits the fan. The government has set a clear precedent that they will bail out banks if their risky behavior backfires. Bailouts, and government assurance, incentivizes this behavior. It's the exact opposite of a free market.
This was the case in 08. Reform has drastically change capital ratios and now banks do have the cash on hand to handle the situation. In fact, airlines are tapping the banks for massive credit lending that the world has never seen and the banks incredibly are able to handle it. The banks are currently saving the world economy.
Problem is the companies that are not saving. The airlines have spend years using free cash for corporate buybacks and executive bonuses. They couldn't go a week with limited revenue streams and tapped lending streams with the banks.
I agree we should not bail out the airlines. I would let them fail. One may survive and in 6 months, new innovative companies would buy planes and compete and train companies will invest and compete. In the meantime there will be limited air travel.
In a true free market society, many/most of the services that are currently the responsibility of government would exist. I know it's hard to imagine, but there are many examples of people coming together to build major public works and perform important public services without the need to give a single entity a monopoly on violence. The argument, which is mostly hypothetical, is whether or not those services could be performed better than the government currently performs them. I believe the answer in a lot of cases is yes, but also with some serious drawbacks.
If the government were to collapse today, industry is not currently suited to fill the gap and improve things tomorrow. This is not an intelligent question or some kind of gotcha against free market proponents.
vvv wrote:
Healthcare and free markets just don't work. There's no money to be made in expensive medical treatments for the old, vulnerable and poor who are, statistically, the ones who need the most expensive healthcare.
Should we leave them to die, thinning out the herd so the rich and healthy like you can prosper?
Bull...
The US healthcare system is no where close to a free market.