Forum Post: Without a the nanny state capitalism cannot survive.
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 15, 2011, 1:25 a.m. EST by abmebratu
(349)
from Washington, DC
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Many conservatives and right wingers in general believe that the government should not have bailed out the banks during the crisis. In fact many of them believe that government should stay out of business in general. At the same time they believe in total virtue of capitalism. To them the current economic system is sacrosanct in general. However, they fail to see the oxymoron it their view. I must admit many liberals also scum to this erroneous viewpoint. The point is capitalism cannot survive without a nanny state that intervenes to save it from its own systemic defaults. We have seen this over and over again throughout history. One of the state's main tasks in the 20century has been to guard capitalism against its own failures. So, I really can't understand why Conservatives continue to insist that governments should stay out of business, while simultaneously being pro capitalism and pro business. Maybe they are secretly planning the down fall of capitalism. I mean think about it, if the banks had been let go during the last crisis we would have a very different economic system by now. so to all pro small government capitalist I say be careful what you wish for.
f it wasn't for bailouts, subsidies, tax loopholes, tax cuts, cash injections and more, capitalism would have burned itself out by now.......One of the main reasons we have the nation state is to protect capitalists from themselves. This is why governments are getting bigger and this is also why the corporate sector and the state are merging.........If we had a really small government, and I'm not talking about the fake small government advocated by the Tea party. I mean, If we really had a limited government, capitalism would have burned itself out already. However, since capitalist know this better than me, they are choosing the nanny state; strengthening is and fostering it. In fact they are engulfing and taking the state over. We are headed for fascism. The final stage of Capitalism....Don't be surprise, it's just the natural course of Capitalism.
Yes, capitalism must be kept in check. Not destroyed. The framers of this nation knew that. They provided for checks and balances within the government system, as well as power to keep capitalism in check. Generations of Americans have let our politicians enact laws that have perveted the design.
http://sanityscribe.wordpress.com/
How does a nanny state protect capitalism?
Bailouts for banks, subsidies for the high tech industry through the defense department, NASA, and the universities, Cash injections for failing financial firms, Tax cuts for large corporations. These are just a few of the welfare programs designed to sustain big business and capitalism in general. Just admit it, if all of these were removed, then it would be just a matter of time til the whole house of cards comes tumbling down........................This is the thing Americans never here form their government or from media......The fate of the state and the capital are intertwined. So, for those who dream of a small government, I say forget it. This would be antithetical to the whole point of the show.
Without these bailouts etc. will these companies not behave responsibly? Because they would be afraid of failing when they know they will not be bailed out.
Failure is inherent in capitalism. With or without the promise of bailouts the banks and other industries would fail. And when they fail you could have instability that could cause "unwanted consequences, such as workers taking over the failed institution and running them themselves. This would be a nightmarish scenario for the capitalist, and therefore it must never happen.You need the nanny state to guard against this. The state can step in and save the failing industry and prop them up before unforeseeable things happen. This is one of the reasons governments all across the globe have been getting bigger over the past century. It's not the only reason, but it's a significant reason why they are getting bigger.
Your point is stupid. The nanny state is diametrically opposite to capitalism. More research needed.
The nanny state is a product of capitalism and not vis versa my friend.
All I'm saying is that the current economic system cannot survive without big brother's protection. As business has been getting bigger the state has to keep pace as well. We are going to see this continued. It is inevitable capitalism will turn to fascism naturally.
You forget one thing. The government..is WE THE PEOPLE. Capitalism allows for huge gains and huge losses. Not bailouts and subsidies. Our elected public servants(by deafult us) allow tax loopholes, tax cuts and etc. Our non-perverted system would allow for more competition that creates jobs, and produces wealth. As such the companies that are fiscally irresponsible, and need the bailouts and etc, would have folded before they got "Too big to fail". There is no such thing as "Too big to fail", unless of course we are already living in a semi-facist state.
You are pretty smart but you are wasting your intelligence for the sake of publicity. I am coming from a country where people took over the system twenty years ago. But the things just got worst thereafter. People didn't have any money because no banks or financial institutions were working properly. There were no jobs, because in an unstable political and socio-eco9nomical situation nobody is hiring people. Transportation did not function because the leadership was part of the "old compromised system" and there was no substitute for it. Schools and colleges did not functioned anymore (as they did), because they did not have any financial support given the fact that the government was almost entirely replaced, even though teenagers loved that..."Carpe Diem." For almost six month it was a hell. But after those six month we slowly discovered that some other "oligarchy" replaced the "old corrupt government." But this time...we have to live with it cause it was "from the people" for the people. Or, at least so it claimed to be. i CAN GO ON LIKE THAT, BUT MY POINT IS: "BEWARE OF WHAT YOU WISH FOR."
Best wishes,
The Boogieman
Well, we don't have to follow the model your country pursued. That's why you have to try different things. I'm not saying all of capitalism is bad and I'm not saying the whole system has to be overturned overnight. No, that would be crazy. But what I'm suggesting is that citizens should be open and about other option. We don't have to be too rigid. In my view we have been too rigid about our current system in this country. Even out political system and spectrum is too narrow for a country of 300 million people. There is no way the Democrats and the Republicans can represent all of us. We need to expand the spectrum. We need more views to be entertained in the mainstream, which has been hijacked by the corporate sector.
Correct, and I will support you 100 percent cause you know exactly what you want and I know exactly if I want to be a part of it or no. But... when you get involved in a movement that first claims something, and ten days later...is all about gays, homosexual, filthy Jews...etc, you have to wonder that this entire movement might be taken over by somebody that you just don't want. And the odds to overturn the new power.....good luck with that. Better to work with what you have, than to want to buy what you cannot afford...
Best wishes,
The Boogieman
Well, It's inevitable that you're going to get some loonies whenever you build a movement of this magnitude, but this doesn't mean the movement has been hijacked. You might have some loud fringe elements, who are racist and narrow minded, but this doesn't even represent 1% of the occupy movement. The other problem we face is that this movement is a total democracy, where there is no authoritarian tendencies. It can be difficult to get order in this situation, but doesn't mean order it impossible either. We have to discover way and means through experimentation and sharing ideas. This means the whole process will not be smooth, but if we carry on we should get to a position of consensus.