Well, this is, I suppose, where what you could call my right wing streak lies. I am very much a non-interventionist in cases like this where we are talking about problems which are long-term and structural rather than temporary blips (where it would be perfectly valid to offer short-term support to help companies through bad times). I would let these companies fail, let the disastrous knock-on effects happen, and *then* offer support for people hurt by it, rather than throwing good money after bad in an unsustainable attempt to solve the problem by keeping unviable businesses going. Money that could - and should - be spent on something that's going to benefit more people in the long run. This is on the grounds that I believe that a sharp bout of economic agony for a couple of years, though bloody awful, is much less destructive in the long run to everyone than a decades long death-of-a-thousand-cuts that will see industries like the American car industry destroyed anyway though pointlessness, with the money chucked after it as it sinks lost forever. Far better it be forced to turn itself into something viable (even if it means cutting back on its generous pension benefits) rather than be encouraged to keep making cars fewer and fewer people want any more.
Of course, politicians will tell you that this problem *is* essentially a short-term blip. But of course, you can't blame them for that, since that's what everyone's *hoping* it is - and since politicians have to be seen to do *something* - then it suits politicians to claim that that is what it is. But I'm pretty sure it isn't.
I make a similar case against financial bailouts, which puts me in an even smaller group of people, I'm aware. :o) (In fact, I do not subscribe to the seemingly growing consensus that letting Lehman fail was a mistake; I think in time to come it will be seen as a necessary move - a pawn sacrifice, if you will. :o) ) However, one of the additional reasons against I would have given then would have been "where does it end? If you bail out Wall Street, how can you then refuse to bail out everyone else?" And, indeed, your post is making this point eloquently.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2008-12-22 11:16 am (UTC)Of course, politicians will tell you that this problem *is* essentially a short-term blip. But of course, you can't blame them for that, since that's what everyone's *hoping* it is - and since politicians have to be seen to do *something* - then it suits politicians to claim that that is what it is. But I'm pretty sure it isn't.
I make a similar case against financial bailouts, which puts me in an even smaller group of people, I'm aware. :o) (In fact, I do not subscribe to the seemingly growing consensus that letting Lehman fail was a mistake; I think in time to come it will be seen as a necessary move - a pawn sacrifice, if you will. :o) ) However, one of the additional reasons against I would have given then would have been "where does it end? If you bail out Wall Street, how can you then refuse to bail out everyone else?" And, indeed, your post is making this point eloquently.