Back in September, these same economic geniuses thought that the TARP money should be used to create a market for bad mortgages. Then it changed to shoring up the banking system. Now we should bail out car companies. The new guy wants to buy computers for teachers with it & further fulfill his Santa’s bag of campaign promises and eco-friendly money disposal.

Does gov’t have a legitimate role? I’d agree with that. But less is better.

And I know this much about economics: our whole system is based on confidence, and the economic geniuses incharge aren’t inspiring any.

Has it occurred to you that people who are against government stepping in are so because of reasons of ethics and principle, as much as good economic theory?

Further, has it not occurred to you that those who classify themselves as “neo-liberal” MIGHT just have an agenda in how they present instruction? OF COURSE they see free-market as being part of the problem — they’re opposed to free markets, not merely because of practicality, as they would clearly like for you to believe, but because of their own ideals. And when Idealism and practicality don’t see eye-to-eye, practicality gets blocked out, and people pretend that “if things had only bee done their way” it would all be better.

But in reality, as has been stated above, it was not the free market that caused this mess; it was the government trampling the free market, and calling it “progress.”

And we wonder why phishing, ponzi schemes and Nigerian internet scams flourish?

Left to themselves, the banks and credit institutions could (and did) figure out who was credit worthy. It was gov’t meddling that caused them to increase loans to the non-credit worthy. It was either that or be punished by the Feds.

Then, when they had the chance, the grifters in Congress (read: Mssrs. Frank and Dodd, in particular) held legitimate inquiry at bay.

There have been failures of capitalism. Enron is an example. The government-prescribed cure, however, is worse than the disease. Sarbanes-Oxley has made American corporations less competitive and has created advantages for new companies to form overseas instead of the U.S.

A few hours of college economics does not an expert make.

I’m assuming you didn’t study in Chicago. May I ask what sort of economics your school taught? I have a nephew-in-law who also studied economics extensively, but he was taught by the French. His claim is that the only reason socialism never works is because of the corruption of the system caused by the left over remnants of capitalism. He believed that because that’s what his French school teachers taught him. I assume you have a similar problem and that your professors leaned a bit to the left.

The problem I’ve had with most left leaning economists is that they agree on how the economy REALLY works, but don’t think that’s the way it SHOULD work so they refuse to teach free market economics.

P.S. There is a “Reply to This” button at the bottom of every comment if you want to reply to a specific comment.

1. I am an idiot who knows nothing about economics
2. Barack Obama is a Communist
3. He was elected because he was black and it had nothing to do with his policies

These “arguments” can be met pretty easily. I don’t doubt that there ARE good arguments for the conservative position, I just haven’t seen them. Many of my friends are conservative, even though I am not, and I was hoping for greater insight into their positions. I sincerely hope there is something more to it than fearmongering and assertion.

1. I know a good deal about economics; I was an economics major in college, and of course have read Friedman. There are lots of economists who disagree with him.
2. No, he isn’t. A Communist adheres to Marxist principles of revolution, which Obama clearly does not. You could argue that he is a socialist, which has a much slippier meaning. He certainly doesn’t believe that the people should collectively own the means of production.
3. If you recall, McCain was leading, or at least tied, until the crisis hit. That was what handed Obama the election. So you would have to argue, “Well, most people vote just on race. So when the financial crisis hit, everyone who switched their vote must have not noticed until then that Obama was black, despite the fact that the campaign was solely about race.” Which is clearly absurd.
4. And about Obama offering everyone money: Bush was the one who sent me a check! Obama has not offered to repeat the favor.

1. He wasn’t swept in only due to the financial crisis. It may have gotten him a few votes, but it’s not the majority of his support. A large portion of his voter base responded to his race based campaign and the effort to make him the first black president (too bad Condie got there first). Many others are hard core Democrats who wouldn’t vote for a Republican to save their skins. And finally there were various other groups that all came tofether to support him: the assorted antiwar types, the socialists, the communists, age bigots, labor usnions, young people who are easily fooled by flashy rethoric, and the black helicopter types. Your comment about Obama not embracing free market principals goes directly against his own proclamations. I guess you didn’t believe him either.

2. No, goverment intervention in the free market is what got us into this mess in the first place. You should probably learn a little economics before posting on the subject. I recomend you read some Milton Freidman or watch his videos (I liked the books better). You can see the videos here: http://www.ideachannel.tv/

If you want to read a more currect economist Thomas Sowell’s “Basic Economics” is a good one.