Maybe, but hopefully the existing controls will prevent that from happening again …. Unless overzealous attempts at “reducing regulations” break those. There were quite a few factors around the Great Depression but consider controls like:
“circuit breakers”, automatically halt trading when a stock or the overall market drops too quickly
“qualified investors” are criteria you must meet for the riskiest investments, basically that you can handle the loss
bank requirements for capital, risk, so less likely to collapse
bank rescues - Lemmy likes to complain about rescuing banks instead of people, but bank collapses during a crisis are what can push the crash off the deep end
Also the overall size and complexity of the modern investment industry should make it much less likely for any one type of investment to drive a general crash.
We haven’t had a real depression in 100 years, so something is working. Sure, we have recessions periodically and some are worse than others, but as long as it’s relatively limited.
I think that a lot of regulations were put in place for a reason. Whether they work for that reason or not, it would be better to understand the reason before blindly removing regulations
None of them have come close to the severity of the Great Depression. We’ll never control all instabilities, the important part is limiting their severity
Yes, I’ve been affected by several of these. I’ve gotten laid off during downturns. I’ve been affected by high interest rates. I’ve been affected by unattainable housing. But at least it wasn’t worse
And yet this is a place where centrism is the goal.
We know that trying to tightly control economies does not work. At all. We shouldnt even try.
We also know that corporate-anarchy serves only robber barons. That’s not acceptable.
So yes, the best answer is to give the market freedom but not complete freedom. To let it do its ups and downs … within limits. To combine the strengths of capitalism with the guardrails of a guided market. Where the capitalist driven market does not serve society, it’s a failure to guide the market so capitalism fulfills desirable goals
Maybe, but hopefully the existing controls will prevent that from happening again …. Unless overzealous attempts at “reducing regulations” break those. There were quite a few factors around the Great Depression but consider controls like:
Also the overall size and complexity of the modern investment industry should make it much less likely for any one type of investment to drive a general crash.
I’m surprised you’re not calling that a government overreach considering your previous comment.
Do you think the current government controls are working and shouldn’t be changed at all?
We haven’t had a real depression in 100 years, so something is working. Sure, we have recessions periodically and some are worse than others, but as long as it’s relatively limited.
I think that a lot of regulations were put in place for a reason. Whether they work for that reason or not, it would be better to understand the reason before blindly removing regulations
See also: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_economic_crises#21st_century
None of them have come close to the severity of the Great Depression. We’ll never control all instabilities, the important part is limiting their severity
Yes, I’ve been affected by several of these. I’ve gotten laid off during downturns. I’ve been affected by high interest rates. I’ve been affected by unattainable housing. But at least it wasn’t worse
https://sh.itjust.works/post/31444567
And yet this is a place where centrism is the goal.
So yes, the best answer is to give the market freedom but not complete freedom. To let it do its ups and downs … within limits. To combine the strengths of capitalism with the guardrails of a guided market. Where the capitalist driven market does not serve society, it’s a failure to guide the market so capitalism fulfills desirable goals