Al68
What do you call the religion of constantly referring to a government regulated market as a free market? Over and over and over?Ivan Seeking said:So it was a failure of the market and a failure to properly regulate the market, which again means a failure of the free market. How exactly do you arrive at your conclusion based on your statement? All that you've done is to reenforce my point that the free market failed and regulation is needed. When left to run amok, the markets turned into one big casino. And we all lost as a result.
There is nothing in a free market to prevent "too big to fail". In my view, this is the now painfully obvious achilles heel of free-market puritanism. No doubt, in the abstract, the market will correct itself. In theory, on paper, as an academic exercise - a gedanken experiment - the free market probably works. The problem is that in the real world, we can't afford to live with the market corrections!
I still believe markets should be as free as possible, but the incessant smokescreening of clear market failures is destructive. The tea partiers have made a religion of denying objective reality here.
There's no point in arguing the semantics of what the words "free market" mean, but the market that you point to as having failed was not in fact the same type of market libertarians advocate. No use or misuse of economic phrases will change that fact.