Anyway, Megan McArdle tackles this issue much better than I did:
Especially odd is the notion that the only tenable position, unless we are to go Marxist, is social democracy. Would we not have had a financial crisis if we'd had really super single-payer health care?Go read the whole thing.
It is true that the belief in both tighter bank regulation and a larger welfare state cluster on the left, but if social democracy is some sort of preventative cure-all, how come the US economy is outperforming places like Denmark, Sweden, and Germany, not to mention the OECD as a whole? Why, if the problem is "American style capitalism", are the biggest GDP declines found elsewhere? I understand that the left finds it politically convenient to link the uninsured and the banking crisis, but this seems only very slightly less silly than blaming it on gay marriage--indeed, looking at the countries worst effected, the latter's correlation seems stronger.
1 comments:
I think that's a false dichotomy. The linked article refers to 'American-style capitalism', which is not the same as 'free market capitalism.'
We don't really have free market capitalism here. What we have is a system in which the rules regulating our financial and economic systems are written by the rich and powerful to benefit themselves at everyone else's expense.
I have no problem with rich and powerful people; but I should get to play by the same rules they do, and right now I don't get to.
Post a Comment