Capitalism has never worked..

[frank ryan]

I was having a conversation with someone this morning and they threw out the thought: "The wealthy elite who are Republicans tend to be business people. The wealthy elite who are Democrats tend to be politicians."

Kind of made me chuckle. Obviously not 100 percent accurate. We all like our cronyism. Some go the business route, some go the "public servant" route.

What is Rep Bishop's net worth. Wasn't he a school teacher before becoming a legislator? Seems like as a teacher he wouldn't have put too much in the bank. Curious what being a legislator did for him.

Yeah, that's not really all that on point either. There are just as many wealthy career GOP politicians as there are wealthy career Democrats. I think wealth is more often than not a requirement to run for public office.

[cowboy]

I'm much more interested in hearing Cowboy prove or explain, with something more than conjecture, why he asserts that the Fed's treatment of Lehman was driven by cronyism (as opposed to Bernanke et al. bowing to the then-existing public sentiment disapproving the Bear Stearns/Fannie/Freddie bailouts, inaccurate/incomplete/ignored data regarding the solvency of Lehman, incorrect assumptions regarding the level of impact a Lehman bankruptcy would have on the markets, etc.).

[Note: Cowboy knows much more about economics than I do. I think, though, that his assertion in this case is the one that should draw interest and discussion based on the known facts of what happened in 2008.]

I apparently articulated my point poorly, that Goldman was politically connected and therefore protected, while Lehman was not. I did not mean to imply that someone with connections purposely stepped in to keep the Fed from helping Lehman. An argument can be made that times had changed and the Fed realized the error of their ways by the time they got to Goldman, but they were treated differently than every other troubled institution. The Fed ended up owning substantial portions of automakers and other banks like Citi, but Goldman was given $20 billion with virtually no strings. Having Rubin, Corzine, Rahm, and most notably the current secretary of the Treasury at the time, Hank Paulson as former Goldman employees gave them an in that virtually no other company had.

[Blueintheface]

calm down bro we r friends

You are friends with creekster? I doubt you even understand the concept.

[Topper]

Looking at Trumps current appointments, it's clear that our country will be run by big oil for the foreseeable future. Does the market keep big oil in check? No, the market is whimpering in the corner. I work for one of the largest IT companies in the world, a company that has no soul and no compassion. It's a profit driven force. Market forces do not affect corporate giants, and they have not power to contain them. Power seeks only to accumulate more power and never relinquishes a bit of its power. Milton Friedman sold us the lie that if we only let corporate America proceed unfettered, the market will keep it in check. It's a lie, and Milton Friedman is the Messiah of that lie.

Friedman was correct insofar that he spoke of monetary policy. The weakness of our economy is twofold. We want our international companies to compete with international companies born in other countries, but in doing so they become monopolies in our country. We do not effectively enforce the antitrust laws against monopoly power. Market policies and capitalism can work but political power and the lack of political will to enforce the laws on the books allow this heartless, useless giants to be created.

The megacorps are the result of crony-capitalism where some garner enough political power to be insulated from how the market should be operating.

[Topper]

It scares me that I find myself agreeing with you more often. As I said previously, capitalism rewards efficiency, and eventually rewards enough market share to an entity that it can stifle competition. At that point, markets are no longer free. The role of government is to ensure that markets are free and competition exists. I'm firmly convinced that capitalism is still the best way for people to better their situation. We have several multimillionares in my town of 600 who grew up poor but worked hard and took calculated risks. We also have several who were born into wealthy families that now have nothing because they didn't work and made poor business decisions.

Our country is the best testament to the merits of capitalism. While their plight shouldn't be ignored, our poor working families are better off than the poor in any other country. I talk with every cab driver and shoe shiner I meet, most who are immigrants, and they all came to America to make a better life for their families, and none regret that decision. We literally have people lining up to come to America. People want to be able to make their lives better by working hard and being rewarded for innovation and risk, and no other system provides that better than capitalism.

Wealth which circulates through the economy is helpful in improving humanity's well-being. The market system is best-equipped to do that. No central control will ever distribute wealth efficiently. What doesn't work is the huge concentration of wealth in small numbers, in a somewhat analogous concept to Krugman's New Geography Theory.

I believe we should see aggressive enforcement of Antitrust laws to promote competition under Section 7 of the Clayton Act, and to fight against monopolies under Section 2 of the Sherman Act. I have no faith that Trump will promote an aggressive antitrust enforcement policy. A body needs exercise, not lethargy. Agglomeration of capital is not healthy and is akin the clogged arteries in the body.

[TexTechCoug]

I'm pretty sure you know that's not what he's saying. He's talking about unfettered capitalism. And he's absolutely correct.

What is unfettered capitalism?