Sósíalisminn að venju hentugur fyrir fjárfesta

Er svo sem ekkert ósammála þessum aðgerðum, en það fyrsta sem mér datt í hug er að að venju hentar sósíalisminn vel fyrir fjárfesta hér vestra, en almenningur í sama landi virðist ekki eiga eins greiðann aðgang upp á pallborðið fyrir svipaða þjónustulund af hálfu hins opinbera. Auðvitað er þetta allt saman spurning hver stjórnar á bak við tjöldin, líklegast ekki lýðurinn eins og sumir virðast halda.

Þannig að "markaðs-upp-kippurinn" í morgun á sér sínar útskýringar: Ríkið bjargaði deginum, ekki markaðsöflin.

Rockefeller eldri orðaði þetta eitthvað á þá leið að vitleysingarnir heimtuðu lægri skatta en þeir greindari lærðu að mjólka kerfið.

Bandaríska ríkisstjórnin tilkynnti nú síðdegis, að hún hefði tekið yfir stjórnina á fasteignalánasjóðunum.

Bandaríska ríkið yfirtekur fasteignalánasjóði

Athugasemdir

[Robert Fripp (IP-tala skráð) 8.9.2008 kl. 23:08]

You seem to forget that the investors, the owners of the funds loose everything they had.

[Róbert Björnsson, 9.9.2008 kl. 01:05]

Robert:  investors loose by gambling on the stock market every day... thats just the sad reality of capitalism.  It would have been far more tragic if 50% of American mortgage owners had lost their homes!   Had the feds not intervened the consequences would have been catastrophic...on a global scale. 

[Ólafur Þórðarson, 9.9.2008 kl. 07:47]

AH! The poor investors! And the poor loantakers, the regular people who lost everything they had and still have 3 kids to house? Is it a looming problem in Iceland?

Svo gleymdist að skýra út að markaðurinn tók kipp út af blesuðu ríkinu sem reddaði þessu fyrir horn. Í bili. Og nokkuð augljóst að Ísland er háð sveiflum erlendis um leið og þær gerast. Áður fyrr voru nokkur ár þarna á milli. 

xx 

[Robert Fripp (IP-tala skráð) 9.9.2008 kl. 11:26]

It is true that free market and open trade, which you call propably capitalism, has created more wealth than any centarlised system could dream to generate.  So in general the free market approach gives the best result.  No system is perfect of course.  Every system needs to rules to play with, that has been lacking and the government is to blame.

[Ólafur Þórðarson, 9.9.2008 kl. 12:42]

Well, my Robert Fripp. Of course when the hypothesis (veiled in a mask of freedom something) is not working out, its promoters always have the government to bash. The government is a nameless large beast that can take endless blows up to a point. And then yield huge returns from the blow, in the form of fishing factories, telephone companies and you name it! Sort of like a south american game where a candy filled papier mache animal is hung up and the kids get a turn at bashing it. In the end out pour the goodies.

But my dear Fripp, do you really think there is such a thing as a free market at all? I mean, its such a nuanced phenomena. And when big money is around we are not talking free market but free roaming money-mafias that protect their candy pile and use the government to protect themselves from a larger population. And just as with the "Don´s" of Brooklyn, these mobsters are admired by an ignorant mob. These Dons will perform a public act while stealing your property, whether your fireplace or even your whole house -many times over! You calculate the cost of a housing loan in Iceland and find the price of the house is multiplied many times, from "market forces" and exuberant interest rates. 

Free marketeering can be good, yet also leave the rest just hanging on because the cheat-factor never enters the theories used by free-marketeers. Perhaps because the free marketer promoters themselves are cheats?