What I perceive from over here in the UK is that when the US government protects failing business with money, its called "socialist" and evil. However, when it protects failing business with law, that's just fine. Despite the fact that these laws also cost a lot of money.
I would like to see the cost of policing and enforcing these laws over time, compared to bailing out, say, General Motors. In fact, wont GM have to pay that money back over time?
Personally, I find it odd that a US government will protect certain business from natural competition. Isn't that anti-American? Anti-capitalism? Anti-competition? Protectionist?
If even a small portion of the US' population had any idea what socialism actually was, maybe we wouldn't all be going bankrupt from our asinine health care system....
If even a small portion of the US' population had any idea what socialism actually was, maybe we wouldn't all be going bankrupt from our asinine health care system....
It's all about framing. "Safety net" versus "Wealth redistribution".
For the record, I prefer that the American adapt the McDonald business model to medical care for increased safety and economy of scale. Copy what the Indian did with eye surgery and heart surgery, not what the European did.
Perhaps the difference is that one of the founding principles of the US is that the government should be a strong defender of property rights. This is probably a good thing in the long run. On the other hand the US government does not have a history of ownership or investment in private companies. In the long run this, too, is probably a good thing as it seems that these actions tend to lead to cronyism and corruption.
The reason this system seems to be working so poorly now might be that its increasingly difficult to define just what "property" is nowadays.
Actually, when the government protects failing business with money or laws, or when the government gives advantages to businesses with money or laws, it's all OK by republicans etc --despite breaking all the supposed "free market" rules.
It's only when the government protects citizens with money or laws, that's it's called "socialism" and evil.
Personally, I find it odd that a US government will protect certain business from natural competition. Isn't that anti-American? Anti-capitalism? Anti-competition? Protectionist?
It was never about a real free market, that's just what it's taught at school. It has always been the case that who has the money makes the rules, and has the government do what he wants, including crushing smaller competition.
I would like to see the cost of policing and enforcing these laws over time, compared to bailing out, say, General Motors. In fact, wont GM have to pay that money back over time?
Personally, I find it odd that a US government will protect certain business from natural competition. Isn't that anti-American? Anti-capitalism? Anti-competition? Protectionist?