Why is constant panic over the economy even a thing? Why can't you just keep interest rates constant...

Why is constant panic over the economy even a thing? Why can't you just keep interest rates constant, fiscal policy within reasonable bounds, and let the chips fall where they may?

because capitalism requires its corporations to expand infinitely which is illogical

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

t. Great depression

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

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.

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

Retard.

This.

Ayn Rand plz go.

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

>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.

How would you have handled 2008?

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.

That's called communism you dumb shit

>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.

>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.

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.

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

Capitalism is inherently unsustainable.

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

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?

>"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.

>the USSR wasn't real socialism,

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

>the USSR wasn't real socialism

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?

>the USSR wasn't real socialism

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

>the USSR wasn't real socialism

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

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

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

Explain or fuck off

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.

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.

"biotechnology" will probably be the next stepping stone.

>fiscal policy within reasonable bounds

war were declared
wut do?

REAL SOCIALISM HAS NEVER BEEN TRIED!!!!

>the USSR wasn't real socialism

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

>"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

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.

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

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

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

I dont fucking know. Becausr capitalism? Idfk

>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

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

You fuckwit

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.

Wrong.

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.