- Joined
- Jul 7, 2015
- Messages
- 39,368
- Reaction score
- 10,018
- Location
- California
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
That makes no sense whatsoever... It's a psuedo-Keynesian theory that holds no water in the real world. The gov't should never stick it's nose into the private sector's ability to be profitable. Our private sector needs to stand on it's own and control it's own destiny. Handing over that responsibility to the gov't means that we depend on the gov't to be competitive instead of depending on our own innovation and smart business choices. Take away the safety net and businesses make better decisions, take fewer risks that have catastrophic results if they fail and work towards a better business model. Having that safety net means that businesses can make stupid decisions and the gov't will keep them from having to face the results of those failures. The classic example iso ur banking industry having so many of it's loans underwritten by the gov't in the form of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Since the banks know that the loans are 100% covered, they are willing to loan money to anyone, knowing full well that they will make money on the fees alone, even if they never earn a dime of interest.
The amount of the deficit should be determined by the needs of the gov't to provide Constitutionally defined services who's funding exceeds the current income. They should be be short term deficits with clearly defined paths to their elimination. Common sense state that no deficits ever doesn't work, but neither does a constant deficit. It's the fact that was have had a constant deficit for decades that has made it look like it's a necessity. The deficit has become a positive feedback monster that we have become dependent on and we need to break that dependency.
Oh ? And what country in this world demonstrates the success of your "business anarchy" idea ?