Why is constant panic over the economy even a thing? Why can't

because capitalism requires its corporations to expand infinitely which is illogical

>>1969084
because interfering in the economy has terrible effects no matter your intentions

>>1969084
t. Great depression

>>1969095
Yeah man, stagnation is so much better. Who needs growth? Society is going to decline sooner or later so why not sooner?

>>1969084
Because everyone disagrees what "reasonable bounds" are and letting "the chips fall where they may" means people will die of starvation/poisoning/crowding/preventable disease or suffer in poverty.

Therefore, we came up with this thing called Government to help us iron out these issues. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't, but it's better than nothing.

>>1969084

Because the government has fucked the economy beyond what is repairable now.

>>1969095

Retard.

>>1969099

This.

>>1969154
>>1969099
Ayn Rand plz go.

We actually try to source our ridiculous claims on here, you won't fit in.

>>1969084
>Why can't you just keep interest rates constant, fiscal policy within reasonable bounds, and let the chips fall where they may

Because doing this is hard and "letting the chips fall where they may" directly impacts your efforts to do this.

>>1969099
>>1969154
How would you have handled 2008?

>>1969260
Playing devil's advocate here, I think their point is that 2008 wouldn't have happened at all if the gov't didn't interfere in the economy.

Which is bullshit but whatever.

>>1969084
That's called communism you dumb shit

File: The-Sixth-Wave-Graph-540w.png (675KB, 1613x1027px) Image search: [Google]

675KB, 1613x1027px

>>1969084
>Why can't you just keep interest rates constant,

Because the economy is not constant

>fiscal policy within reasonable bounds,

What constitutes reasonable bounds keeps changing

>and let the chips fall where they may?

That's how we got the Great Depression.

>>1969084
>Why is constant panic over the economy even a thing?

Did you sleep through the recession?

>Why can't you just keep interest rates constant, fiscal policy within reasonable bounds, and let the chips fall where they may?

Because it's not a perfect world. Banks and financial institutions have been fucking people over for centuries. Zero regulation is a terrible mistake, history has also shown that.

I think you need to look into the history of banking and economic downturns. You seem too young to even know what happened in 2008.

>>1969276
he's too young to remember

Keep in mind that 18 year olds posting here were 10 when the financial crisis happened. Underageb& like OP probably can't even remember it.

>>1969270
How does a government not interfere with the economy? It's mere existence effects it

File: B2OJpb1.jpg (249KB, 863x1200px) Image search: [Google]

249KB, 863x1200px

>>1969084
Capitalism is inherently unsustainable.

>>1969299
You're preaching to the choir. I'm just trying to understand their rationale.

>>1969302
If capitalism is inherently unsustainable, then why as the USA survived for two hundred plus years (whereas the USSR collapsed in less a century)?

Likewise, why has PRC gotten "more capitalist" over years, when the state was founded as a communist one originally?

>>1969487
>"more capitalist"
>he thinks capitalism means markets and businesses

The answer is because the USSR was in a shittier place than the USA in 1922, the USSR like the rest of Europe was fucked over by WWII, the USSR wasn't real socialism, and when it emerged as rival super power, it had little to do with the economic system, it had to do with a clash of two polities vying for world hegemony, and the USA started off in a better position.

>>1969499
>the USSR wasn't real socialism,

Because real socialism is completely unworkable, the best you can get is state socialism

File: UHGNH.png (111KB, 294x200px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 294x200px

>>1969499
>the USSR wasn't real socialism

>>1969499
And how did the USA end up in a "better position"?

I'd say it's was the expansion of capital, of every measure, through economic incentive, that caused that, but we could argue about geographical determinism if that's what you're alluding to.

Moreover, how would furthering a state's focus on markets and business not be a step closer to a capitalist society? Communism is abolition of money and private property, both of which are needed organize a market beyond barter.

Even more germanely, you claim the USSR isn't "real socialism", but in a way that only undermines your point.

You say capitalism is inherently unsustainable, but if you believe that the USSR wasn't even an alternative, then what possible, existing or historical, relevant state could you point out as a sustainable "solution" to capitalism?

File: 112903924.jpg (56KB, 445x383px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 445x383px

>>1969499
>the USSR wasn't real socialism

File: 1477232233762.jpg (16KB, 450x450px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 450x450px

>>1969164
>We actually try to source our ridiculous claims on here,

File: rused.png (24KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 800x800px

>>1969499
>the USSR wasn't real socialism

File: 2724711.png (218KB, 300x366px) Image search: [Google]

218KB, 300x366px

>>1969574
>>1969511
>>1969607

>they think USSR was socialist
>they think Nazis were socialists too

>>1969260

2008 wouldn't have happened if not for the goverment.

However, I would've let everything fail as any normal human bean would've.

>>1969630
Explain or fuck off

>>1969555
The USA was already in a better position before the USSR was even founded. It was also in a better position because they weren't in Europe and their industrial capacity was untouched during WWII. The point is that there are biggest factors outside of ideology that have to do with the success and failures of polities. Retard.

>>1969641
The model of capitalist production was still the same but in this case the means of production were owned by the state and the party.

>>1969275
"biotechnology" will probably be the next stepping stone.

>>1969084
>fiscal policy within reasonable bounds

war were declared
wut do?

>>1969641
REAL SOCIALISM HAS NEVER BEEN TRIED!!!!

File: ohboy.jpg (18KB, 294x294px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 294x294px

>>1969499
>the USSR wasn't real socialism

>>1969639
Oh fuck off. It was Wall Street's profit at all costs that was the catalyst to 08

>>1969688
>"biotechnology" will probably be the next stepping stone.
This. very under rated discipline. Fuck "muh automation" and "Muh Robots", Biocomputers are where it's at

>>1969641
It's not socialism unless it works. Once it stops working it's no longer socialism. If it never worked it was never really socialism. If it works, stops working, then starts working again, it's socialism again until it stops working. Hope that clears things up.

>>1969084
Because frogposters like you only need to worry about getting paid for shilling muh pure socialism.

>>1969639
>2008 wouldn't have happened if not for the goverment.
explain

>>1969685
Then it's not capitalism you fuckwad. Capitalism means it's in private hands which obviously wasn't the case in the USSR.

>>1969084
I dont fucking know. Becausr capitalism? Idfk

>>1971176
>socialism is resistant to economic crises

Jesus Christ. For all you dumbfucks who love arguing about shit they know nothing about
Socialism=worker control over means of production

Socialism is not
Taxes
Free stuff
Failures of capitalism
Free stuff
Bernie Sanders
When the government does anything

>>1971239
Socialism = means of production not private. Public/state ownership is a form of socialism too.

>>1969685
You fuckwit

>>1969084
There's only 2 problems, stockholders who know nothing and financial managers who know nothing. This is where capitalism falls apart because it stops being about reason and more abut the dreaded fee-fees

Because markets fluctuate despite government not because of it. If you keep interest rates the same then you have no means to encourage investment or spending to boost yourself out of demand deficient recessions. Yes the federal reserve caused the housing bubble, but conceivably it could have been prevented by a smarter better fed.

>>1969964

Wrong.

>>1971083

The government made it happen. Started with the Bush administration making houses affordable for everyone, telling the people it was every Americans right to own a house, thus it all started.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government, started to guarantee loans. In fact the US government was one of the biggest buyers of MBS's (mortgage backed securities). Banks capitalized on this, giving out more loans to more people, and since said loans were guaranteed by the US government the banks had nothing to lose, if the loans failed (which they eventually would) the US government would pay for it.

Now, at this point financial institutions started doing very bad things and I agree with that, but we wouldn't be here if it wasn't for the US government. Banks started giving out loans to basically anyone, no requirements at all needed anymore while the rating agencies rated them all AAA at best or BBB/BB at worst. This made them easier to sell so the banks never had them on their balance sheet, they created the loans and sold them away. When loans started failing the whole system collapsed.

>>1971083
Government guaranteed loans to poor untrustworthy people, basically every dumbshit nigger not wanting to pay his mortgage was able to get a loan. Then it all crashed and the government bailed the banks out.

>>1971439
I agree with everything you said, but we have to deal with realities not just total ideals. So Im curious, after we were put in the situation we were by rating agencies with a conflict of interest, artificially low interest rates, government backed loans, CD's, etc. what would have been your response to the crisis? How does Laissez Faire deal with bank runs on solvent banks? How can Laissez Faire deal with demand deficient recessions like the 1930's?

>>1973411

Let it fail and let it rebuild naturally.

What we have now is the same system in place, the very things that caused the crisis has not been dealt with, it's still here which means the next crisis which is inevitable will be eve worse.