these arguments are sooooo tiring. governments v. markets. blah blah blah.

what few people seem to realize is that this argument is indicative of the fact that liberals/conservatives/libertarians are controlling the debate. we're collectively still arguing over how much intervention should be had. that's their narrative, but it has little reflection upon reality.

the problem in europe is monetary. it has nothing to do with how much or how little influence the governments have over the economy. what is has to do with is how much power local governments have over their power to print money. greece and spain and the other have two options - they can either accept yearly transfers from the more wealthy countries (like west virginia accepts transfer from new york), or they can take their sovereignty back and inflate their currency. the idea that they can just accept a currency that's thirty or fifty or a hundred times more valuable than markets would allow their currency to be is ridiculous - unless they want to accept widespread poverty, third world level poverty, as a permanent condition.

further, walkom's lost the plot regarding this country - a plot that was once plastered everywhere. we have a mortgage monopoly here, and they were able to quietly buy up bad assets. we've separated commercial and investment banking. that has nothing to do with anything any recent government has done, and it's not indicative of a better economic position. we were *not* shielded. we simply didn't dismantle the system that was put in place in the 30s and 40s like the americans did, or go back to the gold standard like the europeans did. we were consequently able to *react*. and they would have been able to react, too, had they not foolishly dismantled all their checks and balances.

it's correct to understand it as a failure of the policies of reagan and thatcher.

that's not to say i think these systems are ideal, so much as i recognize that if we must have markets (i'd rather not...) then they need to be regulated to prevent them from collapsing.

our regulatory systems worked, for the simple reason that they still existed.

and, then you get the "borrowing beyond their limits" folks. as though the 1000% rise in the cost of housing, combined with the 50% decrease in real wages, has nothing to do with anything. it's not that housing is too expensive, it's that workers don't deserve to have modest living conditions. you, over there! go live in a closet! get a third job!

we *do* need more socialism, real socialism from the ground up, and it's coming whether anybody likes it or not. the service industry is the economy, now. fast food restaurants are unionizing. other service sectors will follow. this is a natural process and can only be stopped with excessive violence; they may try it, in all truth, but it won't work in the long run. it's a matter of time before wages go up dramatically. and wages have to go up dramatically. people are borrowing heavily because they're not making enough money to live comfortably. once the wage imbalances are fixed, people will no longer have to borrow so much.

so, can we drop this tired governments v. markets shit? in that sense, walkom is right on point.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/07/30/stephen_harper_doesnt_get_new_world_economy_walkom.html