>snip
>
>>>>The market is not a static no matter how much politicians want the general public to believe. Individual businesses adjust to interference as they deem the situation warrants. The macro market adjusts to those individual business decisions. If you continually restrict the ability of businesses to profit they will adjust to maintain that profit. There has been a systemic imposition of taxation, regulation, bureaucratic incompetence and legal repression for decades with relatively minor interruptions. To deny the relevance is to dispute basic economic realities.
>>>
>>>To continue regarding unrestricted capitalism with rose colored glasses is also to dispute basic economic realities. Such as the godawful mess they got us into now.
>>>
>>>Oh wait, this was the fault of the government, not those poor little old bankers and traders.
>>
>>Actually, if you can look objectively at it and avoid sarcasm, you will see that it is a shared responsibility of the government and the financial industry. I've posted the historical time line before and I thought you actually read it.
>>
>>I don't assume every single Democrat is a socialist or a communist or a marxist and not every person who believes in capitalism believes or wants completely unrestricted capitalism.
>
>I don't recall every link you've posted -- who could? <g> -- and don't remember the details of that particular one. I agree the government bears some of the responsibility, but only a small part of it and mainly in the form of not supervising these greedy, reckless b******s closely enough. (OK, Fannie Mae wasn't exactly a stroke of genius; it encouraged risk-free lending to the uncreditworthy). A lot of investors aren't going to feel confident in the financial markets again until they know someone's minding the store. We all know there is some risk in any investment. (Even T-bills, as it turns out). What you don't expect is that the whole system might go belly up. Two years ago, who would have dreamed so many large financial institutions would either or go under or need huge cash infusions from the government to stay afloat?

I'll post a snippet of it again:

On November 12, 1999, President Clinton repealed the Glass-Steagall Act, which for 55 years had prevented banks, the nation's lenders, to get into the so-called "investment banking" business (stock brokers). With lots of pressure in Congress by the Democratic members of the New York contingent, the Senate and House caved in and trashed a law which had provided stability in both the banking industry and on Wall Street.


There were restrictions and oversight, but they were lifted by the government. The responsibility is shared.