You are absolutely right. Not only is the cheerleading misplaced, but, as you argued in your recent editorial, the system itself is fundamentally flawed. However, it is not at all clear how that system can be restructured without falling back into the same traps as before. The system as it now exists is far too big and complex for any government to regulate. And since the only ones qualified to regulate it would be the same people who ran it into the ground previously, how could we assume they’d be trustworthy and not subject to bribery, intimidation or simply a reluctance to go against the flow? Sorry, I know that neither Obama nor you nor hardly anyone else in the USA wants to hear this, but as I see it, the only recourse is some sort of planned economy, where all the large banking and investment firms are allowed to fail, then nationalized, then gradually wound down, to be replaced by a system closer to socialism than most Americans are — apparently — comfortable with. As the system collapses and increasing numbers of ordinary people experience real pain, I think the paranoia regarding socialism will die away in favor of a more realistic approach to our economic dilemma. What’s important to remember is that we are still a nation of abundance with respect to resources, people, skills and knowledge. Once the money mirage is dispelled, there’s no reason we can’t once again prosper.Wouldn't it be great if he posted a comment here, in response? I'd love to know whether he's even considered a socialist option. Sometimes he sounds that way. But most of the time he appears to want to see capitalism survive, albeit in an altered form. What exactly would that mean, Paul?
Posts of Special Interest:
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Comment for Krugman
Here's what I've just posted as a comment on Paul Krugman's blog, Conscience of a Liberal:
Posted by DocG at 12:13 PM