Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
The most notable and odious characteristic of "libertarianism" is that its really just an excuse for navel gazing while the world burns. Opposition to doing anything. The Berners are really good at this, too, but based on a different set of beliefs. Long and short, don't work on improving healthcare because (a) waiting for the market to do it is better, screw the dead people; or (b) waiting for the state to do it or set up a single payor to do it is better, screw the dead people.
And if anyone goes and tries to, say, improve healthcare, well, they're just going to cause more harm than good because democracy / capitalism / the system / the establishment / your navel sucks.
While the above post is just too damn long and wandering to read all of, it's a good illustration of the whole problem.
|
A balance has to be struck as to the amount of intervention people do. Too much creates distortions, which compel later interventions, which create further distortions.
Overfinancialization led to 2008. We cured that by plowing massive amounts of money into the system, which did not trickle down to those most harmed. And the consequence was populism, which led to Trump, who hints at authoritarianism.
You have to burn the forest every now and again to save it. If the system never "clears," the system grows more and more fragile, and when it runs into its next crisis, the result is cataclysmic.
Do I think we should follow the lead of Andrew Mellon in 1929? No. There are smart, limited things to be done to fix a problem. You don't let the world burn entirely. But when you fix the problem, you allow enough creative destruction to take place to wipe out most of the big players who caused the crisis, and allow smaller, more deserving and more innovative players to take their place.
Libertarianism stands for many bad things. But it stands for many good things. And one of those good things is allowing a stagnant system that has pretty much devolved into rentier/crony capitalism and financial engineering to collapse to the extent it should, and allow a better group of actors to take the place of the past regime. What's so bad about that? Oh, I know what's bad about that... Many of us, here, have our bread buttered by that rentier/crony capitalist system. It pays for our tony lifestyles which allow us to come here and complain about its unfairness, and advocate fixes at its margins, but never of a sort which would directly impact us. I believe the old term for this, worth dusting off, is "limousine liberal."
