Capitalism loses! All hail interventionism!
Posted on July 14th, 2008 by bile Tags: banking, Barack Obama, Barney Frank, Ben Bernanke, Big Government, central bank, Congress, Federal Reserve System, Harvard, House Financial Services committee, John McCain, looser banking rules, Massachusettshttp://www.washingtonpost.com/…
The biggest political story of 2008 is getting little coverage. It involves the collapse of assumptions that have dominated our economic debate for three decades.
Since the Reagan years, free-market cliches have passed for sophisticated economic analysis. But in the current crisis, these ideas are falling, one by one, as even conservatives recognize that capitalism is ailing.
You know the talking points: Regulation is the problem and deregulation is the solution. The distribution of income and wealth doesn’t matter. Providing incentives for the investors of capital to “grow the pie” is the only policy that counts. Free trade produces well-distributed economic growth, and any dissent from this orthodoxy is “protectionism.”
The old script is in rewrite. “We are in a worldwide crisis now because of excessive deregulation,” Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said in an interview.
He noted that in 1999 when Congress replaced the New Deal-era Glass-Steagall Act with a set of looser banking rules, “we let investment banks get into a much wider range of activities without regulation.” This helped create the subprime mortgage mess and the cascading calamity in banking.
While Frank is a liberal, the same cannot be said of Ben Bernanke, the chairman of the Federal Reserve. Yet in a speech on Tuesday, Bernanke sounded like a born-again New Dealer in calling for “a more robust framework for the prudential supervision of investment banks and other large securities dealers.”
Bernanke said the Fed needed more authority to get inside “the structure and workings of financial markets” because “recent experience has clearly illustrated the importance, for the purpose of promoting financial stability, of having detailed information about money markets and the activities of borrowers and lenders in those markets.” Sure sounds like Big Government to me.
This is the third time in 100 years that support for taken-for-granted economic ideas has crumbled. The Great Depression discredited the radical laissez-faire doctrines of the Coolidge era. Stagflation in the 1970s and early ’80s undermined New Deal ideas and called forth a rebirth of radical free-market notions. What’s becoming the Panic of 2008 will mean an end to the latest Capital Rules era.
In the campaign so far, John McCain has been clinging to the old economic orthodoxy while Barack Obama has proposed a modestly more active role for government. But the economic assumptions are changing faster than the rhetoric of the campaign. “Reality has broken in,” says Frank. And none too soon.
Is this a joke?
A Massachusetts liberal writing an article about the failures of capitalism using another Harvard grad, NJ born, Massachusetts representing liberal as a source?
Using the fact that the head of the Federal Reserve, which is about as anti-free market as you can get, wants to increase the organization’s power as evidence that free market conservatives are giving up on the free market? Who said Bernanke is conservative? Who said a central bank was free market?
Using the Great Depression as more evidence of free market failures?
Claiming John McCain is a free market conservative?
I’m just astounded by the amount of steaming feces coming off of this article.
3 Responses to “Capitalism loses! All hail interventionism!”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.





July 14th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Thoughts on Glass-Steagall repeal? Only a few years after letting commercial / investment banks consolidate, they’ve shot themselves in the collective foot. Or is this hard lesson #1 that these banks must learn in a less-regulated world?
July 14th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
I’m not going to claim that had nothing to do with what’s going on. Obviously it does. But you must look at what gave them the incentives to do what they did. As we’ve seen, clearly the Federal Reserve’s policies made it easier for them to get into this mess. Had they not had the cheap money and redirected funds into the housing market this bubble couldn’t have occurred on such a scale. And I don’t think you can ignore the effect just the deregulation would have on people’s perspectives. It’s like if we legalized pot. I’m sure usage would rise for a time but after people got over the forbidden fruit aspect things would level out. They need to learn from their mistakes. The government’s intervention doesn’t allow that and advocates worse behavior.
We can not ignore the huge influence the government is both in their role as a regulator and as a money manipulator.
July 14th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
<sarcasm>As a socialist I’m not particularly interested in economics hence I only read the titles of your articles. I’m glad to see you’ve finally recognized the capitalism loses.</sarcasm>