Comments on: A welcome for bankrupt banks: the idiocy of market fundamentalism http://touchstoneblog.org.uk/2009/01/jim-rogers-the-idiocy-of-market-fundamentalism/ Policy news and comment from the Trades Union Congress (TUC) Thu, 24 May 2012 08:14:05 +0000 hourly 1 By: My del.icio.us bookmarks for January 26th through January 27th | called2account http://touchstoneblog.org.uk/2009/01/jim-rogers-the-idiocy-of-market-fundamentalism/comment-page-1/#comment-1260 My del.icio.us bookmarks for January 26th through January 27th | called2account Tue, 27 Jan 2009 23:40:16 +0000 http://www.touchstoneblog.org.uk/?p=1759#comment-1260 [...] A welcome for bankrupt banks: the idiocy of market fundamentalism | ToUChstone blog: A public policy... - Well said [...] [...] A welcome for bankrupt banks: the idiocy of market fundamentalism | ToUChstone blog: A public policy… – Well said [...]

]]> By: Ralph Musgrave http://touchstoneblog.org.uk/2009/01/jim-rogers-the-idiocy-of-market-fundamentalism/comment-page-1/#comment-1251 Ralph Musgrave Sun, 25 Jan 2009 12:39:58 +0000 http://www.touchstoneblog.org.uk/?p=1759#comment-1251 I agree that a complete “free market rip” would involve too much chaos, and anyway this route is just not politically possible. However the market has its merits: it is telling us (amongst other things) that there is something wrong with monster banks, headed by monstrously incompetent CEOs, with monster egos, on monster salaries. And governments are trying (to an extent that I am not happy with) to reinstate these monsters (with vague promises about better regulation, which will possibly amount to nothing). Indeed it is worse than that: the UK government has the facilitated the creation of at least one even bigger monster: the Lloyds RBS merger. I’d like to see a bit more free market chaos than governments are contemplating at the moment. I.e. I’d like to see governments channel the bulk of stimulus money into the pockets of consumers, with less going to banks. ( There is a good article by Simon Jenkins advocating this – see http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/21/treasury-banking-keynes-demand ) The latter policy would mean more bank closures, which in turn would leave space for a series of small local start ups, e.g. perhaps some new small building societies. Capitalism could be described as a continuous process of “start ups” some of which grow into monsters, which then go bust, to be replaced by more start ups. Chrysler and General Motors are classic examples of monsters about to go under. If we can deal with the social consequences of this process, I’m not against it. I agree that a complete “free market rip” would involve too much chaos, and anyway this route is just not politically possible. However the market has its merits: it is telling us (amongst other things) that there is something wrong with monster banks, headed by monstrously incompetent CEOs, with monster egos, on monster salaries. And governments are trying (to an extent that I am not happy with) to reinstate these monsters (with vague promises about better regulation, which will possibly amount to nothing). Indeed it is worse than that: the UK government has the facilitated the creation of at least one even bigger monster: the Lloyds RBS merger.

I’d like to see a bit more free market chaos than governments are contemplating at the moment. I.e. I’d like to see governments channel the bulk of stimulus money into the pockets of consumers, with less going to banks. ( There is a good article by Simon Jenkins advocating this – see http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/21/treasury-banking-keynes-demand ) The latter policy would mean more bank closures, which in turn would leave space for a series of small local start ups, e.g. perhaps some new small building societies.

Capitalism could be described as a continuous process of “start ups” some of which grow into monsters, which then go bust, to be replaced by more start ups. Chrysler and General Motors are classic examples of monsters about to go under. If we can deal with the social consequences of this process, I’m not against it.

]]>