serdfeteAvatar de serdfete6 billets | Profil Recherche Google

ce blog tous
Derniers billets Connexion



This subreddit is for both philosophical

and political libertarians of all kinds Discount Bags including, but not limited to the various "types" listed below. It is in no way aligned with the Libertarian Party. /r/Libertarian is a community to discuss free markets and free societies with free minds. As such, we truly believe in spontaneous order and don formally regulate content (A practice encouraged by site reddiquette). A few general guidelines will help everyone:

Please don downvote comments. Especially because you disagree with a comment. No one should be shut out of a conversation because Wholesale Handbags you disagree with them. In this subreddit: One is zero, zero is negative. No one should be below zero unless it pharma spam or something.

Participate and submit content Please take some time to submit things that foster discussion on Cheap Bags libertarian topics. This is not meant to discourage image macros, which are nothing more than glorified self posts, and are allowed in /r/libertarian. Read through those links if you want, but don message us about it.

Report off topic pharma/revenue spam only, not trolling, or content or comments you disagree with.

Don like the content? Don message us about it . since we aren going to remove it. Go to the new queue and vote on the submissions there if the content bothers you. Cheap Handbags

Sure could. Markets are still prone to failure and people are still going to make improper decisions based on limited information. Thing is, markets adjust and respond much more quickly to these sort of problems, and they tend to self police well enough to keep the problems from growing to big in the first place.

The difference would be that economic bubbles would likely pop much earlier because they wouldn be sustained by Government spending and perverse incentives. The housing bubble, for instance, probably would have deflated itself or burst a lot earlier without various government programs in place to sustain it longer than it otherwise would have lasted. There have been economic contraction, sure, but if we had let the banks that made the mistakes fail or suffer the consequences of their malinvestment we have cleared the markets very quickly and gotten back in shape much more quickly.

A decent (not perfect) comparison could be the dot com bubble which was mostly the result of a LOT of people rushing into the online industry and fueling a large bubble, but there wasn much (to my knowledge) government interference in the sector. When the unsustainable rush burst, we saw a drop in GDP and stock markets, but recovery was relatively quick (WITHOUT government help, I might add, and even with the 9/11 attacks). We let the failed businesses fail and didn bail them out or prop them up, and surviving businesses were able to pick up the pieces and put them to better use, resulting in a pretty speedy recovery. PART of that was because the Housing bubble came in to replace it, but if you look at the status of the dotcom industry today you can probably tell that they doing really well.

Now imagine if the Government had felt the need to step in and support the failing companies and keep Wholesale Bags the bubble going.

An important thing to remember is that in a Capitalist economy, recessions are not really a bug, they a feature. Discount Handbags Business failure leads to liquidation of capital which frees it up for other, more productive uses. Bad businesses need to fail so we stop tying up resources in them. When a lot of bad businesses fail at once (as above), recessions happen, but generally if allowed to recover naturally the economy will come roaring back stronger than before. When we get government stepping in to prop up the bad businesses they really only prolonging the process and setting up for later failure.

close this windowyou'll need to login or register to do thatcreate a new accountall it takes is a username and password.