Big Government is Failing - Again

When the financial crisis hit, a lot of people on the left claimed that the crisis was an indictment of the capitalist system. They called for new levels of government involvement in the economy - more regulation, more spending, more social programs, more ‘investment’ by government in energy, technology, jobs, you name it.

Well, here we are a couple of years later. I’m looking around the world, and it seems to me that Capitalism is doing just fine - I can still buy the products I want at good prices, there are no shortages, no real price spikes.

But then I look at all the places where government has stuck its nose in - the financial bailout packages look to be a disaster, with huge gobs of taxpayer and borrowed money being shoveled to crony capitalists like Goldman Sachs. In the meantime, the government’s predictions for job creation in the U.S. have been wildly off the mark.

The net effect of these government policies is to create a huge moral hazard by setting the expectation of bailouts if a company is ‘too big to fail’ - socializing risk while keeping profits private - just as those companies want it.

In Europe, the social democracies are failing. Their spending is out of control, their debt is out of control, and now EU taxpayers have had to pony up to bail out Greece, with Portugal, Italy, Spain, and Ireland on the bubble. Now the entire EU structure itself is at risk of collapsing.

The U.S. has a 107 trillion dollar federal entitlement shortfall, a monstrous deficit, and skyrocketing debt.

The states with the biggest governments and highest taxes are failing. California and New York are bleeding their best citizens as they pack up and move to states where government is less intrusive. California is near bankruptcy.

Most states are running huge deficits in their public pension and health care plans - deficits that would put private fund managers in jail. Estimates of the total shortfall range from 450 billion to about 3 trillion dollars. Bailing out just the state governments would cost as much as 30 times as much as the cost of TARP.

The ‘socialist paradise’ of Venezuela is collapsing. It’s mired in debt and its economy is moribund, despite high oil prices.

Japan has just spent another $687 billion on yet another stimulus - after a decade of similar stimulus packages. Japan’s economy is a mess, its debt is out of control, it has a seriously overbuilt and expensive infrastructure it cannot afford to maintain (thanks to all that stimulus ‘infrastructure investment’). And despite all these stimulus packages, Japan’s industrial output is collapsing, falling 8.1% in one month alone in November.

Spain’s much-lauded ‘investment’ in solar power has failed. It turns out that government subsidies can’t kick-start new industries and create permanent ‘green jobs’. The jobs only exist as long as the government pays for them. What Spain DID manage to do is screw up the solar industry - causing malinvestment leading to overproduction and ultimately, losses of all the new jobs and billions of dollars of money wasted. The solar power industry is now in big trouble because it wasn’t allowed to grow organically and sustainably, but instead was pushed into a bubble by government, which then popped when they ran out of other people’s money.

The Spanish solar power subsidy program was lauded by Obama and held up as an example of how the U.S. could do the same thing. Good thing it didn’t, huh?

So my question is this: For those of you so quick to condemn capitalism after the financial crisis, just what will it take for you to admit that big government or central planning is not the best model for a society or an economy? Do we have to wait for California to fail? For the Euro Zone to collapse under its own weight? For baby boomers to find out en masse that their ‘savings’ had long ago been spent by politicians eager to buy current votes, and that the government has run out of other people’s money to pay them with?

At what point do you cry “Enough!” and let the market work and leave people alone to manage their own affairs?

I’m not sure I want to get dragged into a big discussion over the validity of various economic models. I don’t understand economics as much as I would like. However, you offer several examples of economic failure that utilize government intervention while excluding others that succeed. It is clear that the Greek model is failing in the near term, but it is my impression that the German and Chinese models are succeeding (well, relatively) in the near term. Certainly you would agree that the latter two are characterized by more government intervention than you would like? E pur si muove.

Obviously there are many other factors in play besides “government intervention” which are perhaps more relevant to an economy’s success or failure. At the very least there must be subtleties in the execution of federal power with respect to the economy that are worth understanding. Isn’t that more interesting and helpful than to rail against a nanny state?

When you can provide an example of a country that, according to you, is doing it right, and let us judge it on its financial success or lack thereof.

Yes, the financial crisis – caused in no small part by some of the biggest banks in the world – has had a negative global impact. And the crisis happened to begin in the country, among the Western democracies, with some of the loosest regulations.

Do the words ‘own goal’ mean anything to you?

Also, please don’t mistake me for one who favors a true planned economy or anything, I’m simply saying that we shouldn’t treat deregulation as a panacea.

I’m going to include this post from 538.com, which raises some points about the modern American economy I find interesting. It concludes,

Quoted for truth and seconded. The current financial crisis is small government’s baby. At best, criticizing big government for failing to deal well with small governments’ massive catastrophic failure is, optomistically, the pot calling the kettle black.

Sam: Far be it from me to defend “Big Government”, but your OP looks like you’re throwing a bunch of stuff at the wall to see what sticks.

So, I’ll just pick the one that looked the most obvious: Venezuela is a “socialist paradise”? That looks like a strawman to me.

So the options are totally planned communist economy and completely laissez faire free market?

Maybe there’s a middle ground with some government regulation. And maybe it’s not how much regulation there is, but rather how well the regulation is implemented. Of course bad regulations are bad, but that doesn’t mean all regulation is.

Cite? Because that doesn’t match my memory of it.

Last I heard, Ireland was doing just fine. And the problem in Greece wasn’t necessarily that spending was out of control; it’s been my understanding that the real problem is that there is no tax revenue, due to decades of writing in loopholes and exceptions to taxes, and the citizens taking advantage of them.

In my lifetime, except for the Clinton era, when hasn’t the US had a monstrous deficit and skyrocketing debt? Since these things happened during conservative US administrations, why do you now seek to tie them in to things that happen under foreign socialist governments?

Cite for the whole solar power industry being in big trouble, solely due to the Spanish gov’t’s influence, as you claimed?

Good thing the US didn’t why? Are you suggesting that the US would have started a similar program and then backed out of it? What do you base that opinion on? Does the US have a long history of not finishing what it starts, in your opinion?

Who do you think you are asking this question to? I don’t recall anyone on this board being “so quick to condemn capitalism after the financial crisis”.

I cry “Enough!” when I see some foreigner trying to tell my country how to handle our business. Why don’t you pay attention to your country, and leave us Americans alone to manage our own affairs? If we want your input, we’ll let you know.

Since I have no interest in starving to death in a famine or suffering any of the other horrible effects of an uncontrolled market, never.

Ignoring the rest of the strawmen with which your OP is rife, cite? Most people I know of were asking simply for a return to the regulations we USED TO HAVE before people like you gutted it assuming (ridiculously optimistically as it turns out) that the market would correct itself.

Huh? What small government? The federal government’s receipts and outlays have been growing in inflation-adjusted dollars (http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and_media/TheNationalDebtImages/ReceiptsOutlaysFY2000.gif) for decades. Or are you going to claim that there are fewer laws affecting businesses or individuals than in the past?

So then very well regulated companies that operate under government’s pressure, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, must have been doing just splendid in this crisis, right?

I contend that Sam is the true enemy of capitalism, not us. Not intentionally of course, but that is the way it would play out. No one I’ve heard condemned capitalism - we’ve condemned the ultra-Conservative ultra-deregulation version.

Time and time again, this model has led to disaster. Banks, to increase profits and beat the competition, keep on increasing both the leverage and the risk, and are rewarded until the bottom falls out. If this was the result of evil CEOs, it would be easy to stop them, but it is actually the result of CEOs trying to maximize stockholder value in the short run (and their bonuses also.) They whine about regulation reducing their profits - which is true in the short run, but not in the long run.

Companies too big to fail is a problem. Does Sam agree with some who say that bank size should be capped to make sure no bank is too big? Or does he think that the collapse of most of the banks in the next crisis is the solution? Remember, we tried letting a bank go in 2008, and almost lost the economy. Is Sam in favor of a new Depression just to say “I told you so” to the banks.

As for the states, most of their problems (which hit ones run by Republicans as well as Democrats) is a collapse in tax revenue from falling sales and high unemployment. This is a direct result of the recession, not from sudden universal fiscal irresponsibility.

The goal of the brains behind Bush was to starve the beast, and to hollow out regulation and government to make it look incompetent. They did an excellent job with FEMA and the SEC. Their only mistake was not prolonging the bubble until Bush got out of office. Their other mistake was having a Treasury Secretary and Fed Chair who actually cared more about saving the economy than hewing to conservative orthodoxy. If the economy had really collapsed, perhaps the hatred of Wall Street would have been so great that we might have had a socialist revolution. Perhaps that is what Sam really wants. Me, I like regulated capitalism just fine.

Oh, there they go, there they go!

Every time somebody start talking about who was the biggest fool was in the financial industry, somebody bring up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

That’s they two! Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac! Let me tell you something once and for all: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was fools! But compared to Lehman Brothers, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac ain’t shit!

:smiley:

They did fine when they were actual government entities. The fad of privatization made them a bit of both, and so with conflicting goals it is not surprising they ran into trouble.

You couldn’t choose a worse comparison. Lehman Brothers went bankrupt! Its shareholders lost all of their investment. Companies that lent it money lost most of their investment. This is exactly how the free market should have worked. Taxpayers should not have to pay for it or any other company.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were guaranteeing or owning $5 trillion in debt. Lehman Brothers had $613 billion in bank debt and $155 billion in bond debt (Fannie Mae - Wikipedia, Lehman Brothers - Wikipedia). Nice try, though.

No, they did fine when the home prices were going up. Since they became semi-government entities in 1968, you will have to make a very interesting stretch to claim that this was what caused their problems 40 years later. I’ll be waiting.

I’ll second the call for a real world example of a successful recovery from a catastrophic economic collapse along the model the OP would like to see.

Near as I can tell the model the OP would like (or as near as we are going to get) happened to Japan and led to their “Lost Decade”.

Bet Sam Stone will have kittens when he sees Japan fixed their crisis by…wait for it…nationalizing a bank.

It really was more for the lulz (well, that and to mock the idea – not yours --that Fannie and Freddie were the root cause of the problem) but you knew that.

In any case, am I correct in presuming that your recommendation for the financial crisis was ‘do nothing’? Let all the banks that would collapse–yes, due to their own malfeasance–collapse.

I guess there is something to the idea, idealistically speaking. And I hear soup lines serve a very nice chicken noodle on Wednesdays, too. Win-win!

Since this discussion was getting of the OP’s main point, which is undoubtedly correct, I will point to Economic Data and Statistics on World Economy and Economic Freedom. Here are the countries with the most economic freedom, as defined by the Heritage Foundation: Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, Switzerland, Canada, United States, Denmark, Chile. Here are the countries with the least: North Korea, Zimbabwe, Cuba, Eritrea, Burma, Venezuela, Libya, Congo, Turkmenistan, Solomon Islands. It doesn’t get much clearer than this.