Rush Limborg wrote:
^As I said before...the competent can rebuild....
You're assuming a great deal more competency on the part of the economic elite than I do. These are, after all, the same people who honestly believed that the housing bubble would never pop and that anything with a ".com" in its name was a license to print money. Frankly, I view Wall Street as little more than a collection of junkies looking for their next fix, and I have no faith that there are enough competent business leaders to rebuild and stabilize the economy without significant government oversight.
And those that honestly can't...through no fault of their own...can be hired by those companies who are good. It is in those companies' best interests to do so.
1. You're assuming that there are enough people out there who weren't brought down by others' bad business practices that they can rebuild.
2. You're assuming that those who are rebuilding can afford to hire others.
3. This doesn't address the damages done, which can be extensive and next to impossible for some families to recover from.
4. Nobody hires the poor. Not for enough wages, anyway. If you're underpaid before
the economy collapses, what makes you think there's any incentive for potential future employers to increase your wages after
a collapse? "Gosh, I'd love to pay you more, but we were hurt, too..."
But they only can...if the government will only allow them to....
Hence...the neccessary limitations on government power....
I don't think anyone wants the government to control the economy a la the USSR. But by the same token, I don't think you're paying sufficient attention to the need to regulate business to prevent such a large accumulation of wealth in the hands of the elites -- i.e., the need to redistribute at least some
wealth. 10% of this country owns 90% of the wealth; that ten percent could get by with 50%. Such an accumulation of wealth is a threat to democracy and to the liberty of the other 90% of the population.