A person at Lonely Answers Club recently told me that I should take a course in Economics. She said:
If true capitalism were in place, nothing would be illegal. Instead, it [overpayment of executives] would be driven out by the market itself. Pure supply and demand would rule.
Our problem according to her is that our capitalism isn’t pure enough — it’s not the complete capitalism — the full capitalism — it has been diluted to some degree and meddled with.
But I remember September of 2008. There was Henry Paulson down on his knee in front of Nanacy Pelosi, in the Oval Office. Maybe I’m the only one that remembers, but he told her that unless she came through with about a trillion dollars in TARP money there was going to be a compete and total collapse of the US economy — another Great Depression.
I have no doubt that what Henry Paulson said was true. I’m not sure TARP was the ideal way to handle the crisis. I would have gone for government takeover and liquidation combined with strong prosecution of about 2000 senior executives at Big Banks and Hedge Funds on Wall Street. I would have added two more wings on Allenwood, and filled them with cellmates for Bernie Madoff. But instead we taxpayers recapitalized the banks with money they never loaned out, and now it time for reload, they are doing the same con all over again because we cannot admit we got scammed.
In this context the Econ 101 graduates are here to tell me that capitalism is not pure enough. We would all be better off if there were less regulation. If everything were legal, like in Heinlein’s Hong Kong Luna. The market would take care of everything.
So why didn’t Pelosi just tell Henry Paulson — "Don’t come to me, the market will take care of everything Paul."
Some flaws may have appeared, or become apparent to rational observers, of which there may be few or none in USA because too many people have taken Econ 101 and learned the Efficient Markets Hypothesis from Milton Friedman and Burton Malkiel.
Here’s what I want to know — are markets truly efficient? Did Moody’s and Standard and Poor’s give honest ratings on the Mortgage Backed securities they rated? Did everyone who dealt with Goldman Sachs get a square deal, or know that they weren’t getting a square deal? Did AIG get $380 Billion in taxpayer bailout money because Goldman Sachs was a major counterparty, and Goldman had a lot of friends in high places — like Paulson, and Geithner.
Did the big Wall Street investment houses and banks pay out $700 million in bonuses for the same years performance in which they caused the totaly destruction and almost collapse of the entire US economy — was that the wonderful and excellent work that they bonused themselves for — using TARP money — your money — taxpayers tax money? Would that be a flaw in capitalism — or maybe a sign that we don’t have pure enough capitalism — with the really pure stuff those guys could have taken $20 Billion in bonuses, oh heck $50 billion, why not? The average working guy gets what $45,000 per year total pay.
The Econ 101 people can’t see anything wrong with that system. No flaws. It’s almost perfect. Could be perfect if we just got rid of the remaining rules and made everything legal.
I was reading Heinlein before my interlocutor ever took Econ 101. When she’s taken 10% as many courses in economics as I have, she can come and teach me Economics. In the meantime, do you think there are any flaws in American Capitalism?
You’re learning something that I learned a long time ago: when it comes to Economics, a little knowledge is certainly a dangerous thing. As you state, many people have taken Econ 101, but you are dealing with issues here that are well above the scope covered in Econ 101.
People who have taken Econ 101 often come away from the course thinking that they have learned a lot, and are knowledgeable in all things about the economy. The problem is that Econ 101 teaches only a simplified version of reality. Everything in the course is different from reality because they teach basic concepts; by doing so, everything is isolated from all other related issues, and everything uses basic assumptions in order to teach each concept.
It usually takes many Economics courses well above the level of Econ 101 to understand that people who have an Econ 101 level of economic knowledge do not have a grasp on what works, and what does not work. Yet the nature of the course has them convinced that they have all the answers. I earned an economics degree (4 year) way back in 1979, and I have spent all the years since then seeing and listening to people with an Econ 101 level of knowledge telling eveybody what is wrong and how to fix it; some of these people are now serving in Congress.
I do not see anything wrong with the American economic system, other than the fact that the process is ugly and slow. A simplified version of its history: At first, free markets rule. As problems are exposed due to the markets being totally free (such as exploitation, which is very real, an overview of American history will show that), then something is done about it, usually in the form of regulations which put limits on how free the markets in question are. Often, this requires that the issue be elevated to a major political issue, but not always.
These regulations can be misguided, for sure. They are often political reactions to complicated issues, and can be based on incomplete information. They can go in the wrong direction, or too far in the right direction. When the solution becomes the problem, the regulations can be ondone using another step in the political process. This entire process (problem identification, solution, fixing a wrong solution) is lenghty and politically ugly.
But just because regulations CAN be misguided, doesn’t mean that they always are. And it has been proven that pure capitalism does create problems that can be addressed in no other way, short of adopting a system other than capitalism. People who believe in pure capitalism with absolutely no government involvement are misguided. Your acquaintance who said that free markets would keep executives from being overpaid is very misguided. Also, you often hear people ranting about regulations being all bad. I’ve never heard any one of them delve completely into the issues involved to prove that: in order to prove that any regulation is bad, a person must show complete understanding of the history of the regulation, in terms of why it came about, what problems did it solve (or not solve), what costs does it impose, how it affects the overall economy, and how it affects other people who may gain from such regulations. Then using a cost/benefit approach, people can be knowledgeable enough to decide whether any given regulation is good, goes to far, or goes in the wrong direction. But nobody ever does this, and when they rant about regulations in general, an uninformed public often agrees with them.
Politicians and policies can be misguided, for sure, but there are situations dealing with the economy where common sense would say that having elected officials, who are answerable to the people and who presumably have the people’s best interest as a guide, making decisions is a better solution than having these decisions being made by powerful corporations, who are not answerable to the people, and are motivated only by how much money they make. Another history lesson, disputed by those who will rewrite history to prove a point: the growth and survival of the middle class depends on government to put restrictions on the power of giant corporations.
It appears that a better solution could have been found in September 2008. Back then, the term everybody was using was "too big to fail". We should never consider any economic entity as being too big to fail. But a case can be made, based on economic conditions, that a firm is "too big to fail right now under present conditions". That justification, although not using those words, has been used for past actions, such as the Chrystler bailout of the 1980s.