Loose lips sink ships, and they're not very good for blow jobs either.
Concerning libertarianism
A few things/points I can argue on your bit with the philosophy.
About the bank situation without intervention...in the short-term, it probably does work out for the best that the government intervened. However, I don't think it would work in the long-term, because, in a twisted way, the government has rewarded the banks for their failure. From what I've read, they got into the position they were in because they were dealing with very risky decisions and were largely very unorganized when it came to the long term. Now, there's inheriently no reason for these banks to consider changing, because if they fail--hey, we can just get bailed-out by the government again.
Also, as to how to best choose a bank: It would have been difficult back in the day, definately, but I imagine this would be easier in the age of the internet. If you do a quick Google search, you're liable to find sites where one can rate restaurants and small businesses. Why can't the same be done to banks?
Finally--for all intents and purposes a small-l libertarian (someone who like the philosophy compared to the big-L Libertarian, who is a member of the actual political party), and between lower-middle class and poor at the moment. Any questions you want to ask of me, I'll try to answer.
About the bank situation without intervention...in the short-term, it probably does work out for the best that the government intervened. However, I don't think it would work in the long-term, because, in a twisted way, the government has rewarded the banks for their failure. From what I've read, they got into the position they were in because they were dealing with very risky decisions and were largely very unorganized when it came to the long term. Now, there's inheriently no reason for these banks to consider changing, because if they fail--hey, we can just get bailed-out by the government again.
Also, as to how to best choose a bank: It would have been difficult back in the day, definately, but I imagine this would be easier in the age of the internet. If you do a quick Google search, you're liable to find sites where one can rate restaurants and small businesses. Why can't the same be done to banks?
Finally--for all intents and purposes a small-l libertarian (someone who like the philosophy compared to the big-L Libertarian, who is a member of the actual political party), and between lower-middle class and poor at the moment. Any questions you want to ask of me, I'll try to answer.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Phil on -
FYI I have been using KEY bank for years and due to their solid ethics were virtually unaffected by the banking crisis
-
Permalink Reply by Soccergirl on -
Granted, in this case the government did bail out the banks. Like you said, the way things are now, I don't see any reason why the banks won't just go back to business as usual once the spotlight is elsewhere. It seems to me, the only way to prevent this from happening again is to either have the government completely take over the banks or to have a serious revamping of regulations to prevent this kind of reckless lending, etc.
Libertarians (as I understand a certain segment of them) think you should remove all regulations and let the market determine outcomes. The idea here is that insolvent banks would just fail and successful, fiscally responsible banks would survive. The problem here is the poor schmucks who use the damn banks. As a banking customer, how am I supposed to feel safe putting my money in an institution governed by nothing but the free market? There are no safeguards for me in that system. There is no entity looking out for my interests. Yeah, the internet might allow people to post reviews, etc. Great, so I can find out which bank has the best track record so far... but that still doesn't give me any kind of guarantee that my money will be safe. Track record and reputation aren't the same as GUARANTEE. Sure, the current federal system subject to democratic regulations dictated by voters and elected officials has plenty of problems. The officials often suck, the beurocracy is maddening, the system doesn't work as it should. BUT, the idea behind the system is top notch. If only we could keep corruption and idiotic politics from fucking it up so much. I don't know about you, but a federal system subject to democratic regulations dictated by voters and elected officials and backed by federal guarantees sounds a heckuva lot safer than free market regulated by profits alone. I just don't trust people that much.
© 2009 Created by Soccergirl on Ning. Create a Ning Network!
