Sertorio wrote: ↑
Sun Oct 14, 2018 3:02 pm
I agree that the US governement had some responsibility in the crisis, but all the basic instincts of bankers were pushing the economy towards disaster. One may blame democratic governments for things going wrong, but the association of capitalism and freedom will always end up in disaster. Only a dictatorship - of the nazi German type - may control capitalism enough to avoid some of the major disasters. But if that's what is necessary to have a working capitalist system, I prefer not to have it.
Canada and Australia are both (allegedly) democracies but with different structures of government to the US. During the Great Depression there was not a single bank closure in the former (in vivid contrast to the USA) while in the latter there was only one insolvency - and that was the state owned State Bank of New South Wales. During the 2007-08 GFC there was not a single bank insolvency in either Dominion nor any bank bailouts (none needed) thanks to sound banking regulations in both.
The GFC did not happen in either. These two were merely affected via their external commercial ties to a greater or lesser extent by the global backwash from the US and European implosions. Canada more so and Australia less so.
, please do not blame it on "democracy" or "freedom" nor presume that these two, along with capitalism, necessarily forment economic instability. The performance of the two sister dominions suggests otherwise. It is just that the USA has a structure of government that seems to be almost designed to bring about the mishandling of the nation's economy.
Not helped along by the fact that the two big political parties in the US are in the habit of fielding endorsed candidates to run for president who, while they may present themselves well in front of the TV cameras, usually turn out to be clueless about macro-economic management.