Dude, the pdf you attached seems to be in reference to the stimulus, not the bailout (banks aren't mentioned once), but if you meant it to be about the banks, my point remains. Libertarians were/are anti-bailout. I get that, but how would the world look right now sans bailout and with a financial sector collapse? Rosy? Governments are equally capable of solving or creating economic disasters in equal measure depending on the policy. Tax cuts during the W Bush years...economy better or worse than when he took office? I'll read some of your friend's stuff on Reason w/ archaic references to newly post-industrial Sweden as the model, completely ignoring modern Sweden being Bernie's model and the fact that they haven't fallen off the face of the earth in some cataclysm with fascistic socialist policies.
Oops. You're right, let me find the right one, its in my computer somewhere.
While the stimulus is different the principles are inherently the same: you can't artificially prop up entities in the long run by giving them handouts. For other reasons, its immoral to burden people with hidden tax and devalue their savings.
Your point re Libertarians would be somewhat interesting if you could think what the banks would have done if they weren't in bed with the government in the first place. But strictly speaking, it's impossible to know. The free marketers will say the big banks should not have been bailed out and let to fail while the well run banks bought them out and things continued healthy after a shock. The interventionists will claim they've rescued the economy. And the obvious retort to that they haven't and that it's only temporary and a bubble is brewing.
If you think I'm Republican, you're wrong. I believe in tax cuts for all, not just for the rich. And the irony of talking about Bush or many Republican presidents is that they expand the government more than the Democrats, despite the rhetoric.
The reason I've pointed you towards Sweden is precisely because Bernie uses them as a model. From the 1860s until the mid 20th century when Sweden was arguably the most capitalistic country in the world, it rose to the top 4 richest countries in the world. Its government only spent 10% of GDP. During that time and culminating in the 1970s they decided to enact widespread welfare programs. Subsequently, their economy saw poor economic performance during the 80s and 90s resulting an a depression of sorts.
They've since then been moving away from socialist policies but still, now, their government spending makes up ~52% of GDP.
America herself became arguably the strongest country in history in the span of a few hundred years because of this economic freedom and limited government.
Ultimately, for obvious reasons these programs are bound to fail due to their root flaws for improving and cutting costs. They inadvertently instill inefficiency. Sweden because of its size and homogenous nature deals better with these limitations but the lessons of the past are clear.
If you want we can continue the conversation in PMs so we don't hijack this thread which is about the ongoing presidential debates etc. As you can also see, the circlejerk wants to continue and will resort to ad hominem attacks also. I replied to you since you're respectful and seem genuinely interested.
