On a philosophy-of-economics level, I've been starting to wonder if perhaps capitalism, at least as it's so commonly considered by most people, carries adverse effects in an environment where success encourage centralization. Here in the states, our banks are becoming ever-centralized, and now if one falls, the phrase "too big to fail" comes up. I hate that phrase, but it's got a certain kernel of truth to it, in that if one of these banks badly goes under, we can kiss a wing of the economy goodbye.
So what do we do, then? We're ransomed. We end up having to bail their asses out because the alternative is worse, and we get socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor. It seems that either businesses need to not be able to get that big or the public deserves the right to become a stakeholder.
Granted, Fannie Mae Freddie Mac are examples of really bad socialism, having been government social programs that were then allowed to have real shareholders. Other companies, however, really have crawled themselves into positions of making us share their fates.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-07-15 12:20 am (UTC)So what do we do, then? We're ransomed. We end up having to bail their asses out because the alternative is worse, and we get socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor. It seems that either businesses need to not be able to get that big or the public deserves the right to become a stakeholder.
Granted, Fannie Mae Freddie Mac are examples of really bad socialism, having been government social programs that were then allowed to have real shareholders. Other companies, however, really have crawled themselves into positions of making us share their fates.