God Bless the Nanny State

[Tiernanator]

For years the right have been bleating about the so-called "nanny state". With the exceptions of a few hard right monetarists the universal consensus throughout the free world is that the "nanny state" has become fashionable again especially when it helps to prop up a failing banking and credit system.

The right wing of various shades are in my opinions total hypocrites here. If they believe in market mechanisms so much then they should let the system crash and reform. I as someone on the left am all for state intervention but I certainly won't let any right wingers talk me down in the future when I support greater funding for public services. I will remind them of this time and how they all became "socialists".

[Clanrickard]

For years the right have been bleating about the so-called "nanny state". With the exceptions of a few hard right monetarists the universal consensus throughout the free world is that the "nanny state" has become fashionable again especially when it helps to prop up a failing banking and credit system.

The right wing of various shades are in my opinions total hypocrites here. If they believe in market mechanisms so much then they should let the system crash and reform. I as someone on the left am all for state intervention but I certainly won't let any right wingers talk me down in the future when I support greater funding for public services. I will remind them of this time and how they all became "socialists".

There is nobody I have seen that believes in a totally free market. It simply doesn't exist. Street lighting, guards, harbours, roads etc all have to be paid for from tax. It is getting the blance right is the problem.

The banking system acts like the blood of the system. No blood and the system dies. That is why the banks have to be saved. I would say that tighter regualtion is needed on banks than other forms of company. In that respect Mr. Neary got it wrong.

[Gimpanzee]

you have a point to some extent, but generally the empty vessels that rattle on about the 'nanny-state' are just cranks - these are Daily Mail readers, not FT readers.

[Tiernanator]

Actually Clanrickard there have been a few commentators who have said they want the market to sort it and to be honest I have a sneaking regard for these people. At least they walk the walk. For socialists and those on the left generally this banking crisis has been an answer to our prayers.

Not because we want to see business fail or people lose their homes defaulting on mortages but because it puts the nail in the coffin of free market liberalism. The "nanny state" whether through intervention or through a rigorous regulatory function is here to stay. In my opinion it is not a bad thing.

[Retrolives]

Booms and busts are a manifestation of government intervention in the free market. The coercive government monopoly on the most common method of exchange (money) is the root cause of the daily litany of banking horrors. By maintaining artificially low interest rates the central banks fueled an unsustainable boom that must inevitably lead to a bust. The economic crisis was during the boom period when all the malinvestments took place. The bust is when the economy finally gets a chance to recover after the horrendous government intervention. All this proves is that once again central planning doesn't work. F.A. Hayek won the Nobel Prize in 1974 for proving this to the world but unfortunately his discovery would lead to a lot of government employees losing their jobs so it is rarely discussed in the main stream media.

You have every right to criticise those with double-standards with regards picking-and-choosing what they want to subsidise but don't get confused with those who defend human freedom and those who defend corporatism. At the end of the day:

Inflation is a tax caused by governments that leads to mal-investments and booms and busts.
And
Taxation is theft/extortion.

[wysiwyg]

Booms and busts are a manifestation of government intervention in the free market. The coercive government monopoly on the most common method of exchange (money) is the root cause of the daily litany of banking horrors. By maintaining artificially low interest rates the central banks fueled an unsustainable boom that must inevitably lead to a bust. The economic crisis was during the boom period when all the malinvestments took place. The bust is when the economy finally gets a chance to recover after the horrendous government intervention. All this proves is that once again central planning doesn't work. F.A. Hayek won the Nobel Prize in 1974 for proving this to the world but unfortunately his discovery would lead to a lot of government employees losing their jobs so it is rarely discussed in the main stream media.

You have every right to criticise those with double-standards with regards picking-and-choosing what they want to subsidise but don't get confused with those who defend human freedom and those who defend corporatism. At the end of the day:

Inflation is a tax caused by governments that leads to mal-investments and booms and busts.
And
Taxation is theft/extortion.

Just as a matter of interest... if you take your theory to the nth degree... would you advocate the killing of non productive members of society on the basis that they are a draw on economic resources which could be more efficiently used elsewhere ?

I wouldn't think you'd kill kids as they have a future economic value... but retirees perhaps ? Or should they be prepared to work until they fall down ?

People with life-threatening illnesses ? I mean your average cancer patient is probably going to die of the cancer or some related disease at some point, so why bother treating them ?

What you are advocating is a true "survival of the fittest (meanest, greediest, strongest, most devious *insert as applicable), which would render humans to be no more than sentient animals

[Clanrickard]

Actually Clanrickard there have been a few commentators who have said they want the market to sort it and to be honest I have a sneaking regard for these people. At least they walk the walk. For socialists and those on the left generally this banking crisis has been an answer to our prayers.

Not because we want to see business fail or people lose their homes defaulting on mortages but because it puts the nail in the coffin of free market liberalism. The "nanny state" whether through intervention or through a rigorous regulatory function is here to stay. In my opinion it is not a bad thing.

ANswer to your prayers! Were you praying for people to loose their jobs and hoses just to prove a point? How compassionate.

Look pal the free market is the only show in town. Having lived in Eastern Europe post Berlin Wall I witnessed at first hand the utter devastation wrought by the lunacy that is Socialism. Just ask any Eastern European you meet about it. The more advanced nations on this earth all have free market economies, the backward nations have dictatorships or economies that are in theory free but are warped by corruption and cronyism. Multiparty party democracy, rule of law and free markets are the ONLY way to go.

What you forget is the sub prime bubble is this country was caused by the nanny state. Mortgage relief and a plethora of tax incentives distorted the market. If the market was free, ie no incentives, then people would have to save to pay for their roof. Furhtermore it wasn't the regulations that were the problem, they were fine, it was the regulators who were asleep at the wheel. There is nothing in this crisis that says the free market doesn't work. The fact that many banks are in trouble for shoddy lending and people are losing houses they couldn't pay for in the first could legitimately be an arguement that the free market is working just fine.

[cHeal]

Most free marketeers warned that this would happen. Not because of the free market but because of interference in it. So not free market economics is not dead, but I think this will be used as an excuse to further interfere in the markets and will lead to far worse problems down the line.

[Oldira1]

For years the right have been bleating about the so-called "nanny state". With the exceptions of a few hard right monetarists the universal consensus throughout the free world is that the "nanny state" has become fashionable again especially when it helps to prop up a failing banking and credit system.

The right wing of various shades are in my opinions total hypocrites here. If they believe in market mechanisms so much then they should let the system crash and reform. I as someone on the left am all for state intervention but I certainly won't let any right wingers talk me down in the future when I support greater funding for public services. I will remind them of this time and how they all became "socialists".

I am not sure the term nanny state refers to public services and the like.It more refers to the state interfering in peoples day to day lifes and telling people what is good for them etc. Its the small things like people wanting health warnings on Big Macs, a ban on cigarettes, restrictions on free speech that get peoplews goat up. Providing proper public services is not Nanny Statism. Telling me I cannot buy a bottle wine in a garage however, is.

[atlantic]

Well said.The government regulates land and planning which was one of the main reasons along with low ECB rates that house prices went out off control.If the government see a good idea or product working and they can make a Euro they regulate and tax it,thus pushing up costs and prices to the consumer.

Booms and busts are a manifestation of government intervention in the free market. The coercive government monopoly on the most common method of exchange (money) is the root cause of the daily litany of banking horrors. By maintaining artificially low interest rates the central banks fueled an unsustainable boom that must inevitably lead to a bust. The economic crisis was during the boom period when all the malinvestments took place. The bust is when the economy finally gets a chance to recover after the horrendous government intervention. All this proves is that once again central planning doesn't work. F.A. Hayek won the Nobel Prize in 1974 for proving this to the world but unfortunately his discovery would lead to a lot of government employees losing their jobs so it is rarely discussed in the main stream media.

You have every right to criticise those with double-standards with regards picking-and-choosing what they want to subsidise but don't get confused with those who defend human freedom and those who defend corporatism. At the end of the day:

Inflation is a tax caused by governments that leads to mal-investments and booms and busts.
And
Taxation is theft/extortion.