Business

When Markets Fail, the Public Should Step In

Capitalism's government bailouts prove its tendency toward failure and demand a fix. Governments should own too-big-to-fail firms that fail, absorb publicly funded functions, and compete directly in life-essential sectors.

unsplash.com/@gettyimages

Abstract

Every few decades or sooner, Americans are told the same story. A giant corporation or an entire industry stumbles, the economy teeters, and suddenly the free market's biggest champions come to Washington with their hands out. In 2008, taxpayers backstopped the banks by hundreds of billions of dollars. In 2020, airlines that spent years buying back their own stock lined up for federal rescue money. Each time, the public absorbs the losses while the profits, once the crisis passes, flow right back to private shareholders. If capitalism keeps failing in this predictable way, it is fair to ask why the public keeps paying for the failure without ever gaining ownership of what it saves, a simple proposal based on three rules.

First, any business that is "too big to fail" loses its independence the moment it fails. If a company is so large that its failure could collapse the economy without a government bailout, it is basically a public utility in everything but name and potential future profits. When it enters bankruptcy, the government should not simply loan or give it money and walk away. It should assume it permanently. If the public bears the risk, the public should hold the asset. Anything less privatizes gains and socializes losses, which is the arrangement we have now and the one that keeps producing crises.

Second, any function that already depends on government funding should be absorbed by the government outright. Consider how much of the "private" economy runs on public money: defense contractors, hospital systems built on Medicare and Medicaid payments, universities floating on federal loans and grants, agribusiness sustained by subsidies. When an industry cannot survive without a permanent stream of taxpayer dollars, the market has already failed. Continuing to route public funds through private go-betweens creates a layer of profit extraction between the taxpayer and the service. Future funding should come with a transfer of the function itself.

Third, and most importantly, the government should directly compete with private businesses in every sector essential to human life: food, housing, electricity, water, medicine, and transportation. The theory behind capitalism holds that competition pushes prices down through greater abundance. But in these life-or-death sectors, businesses have every incentive to do the opposite. Scarcity is profitable. A housing developer gains nothing from building so many homes that prices fall. A pharmaceutical company gains nothing from flooding the market with cheap insulin. A grocery chain gains nothing from oversupply. Private companies will not generate goods in excess, because excess destroys profit margins. A public competitor, freed from the profit motive, can produce beyond demand. This action will force prices down across the whole sector. This will not end private business; it establishes a floor. Companies can still compete, but they could no longer hold food, shelter, or medicine hostage to scarcity pricing.

Defenders of this recurring rolling fact point to the human cost of entrusting human essentials solely to the market. Globally, due to the market, millions die every year from hunger, unsafe water, and lack of basic medical care. Deaths that occur not because the world lacks the capacity to produce food, water, and medicine, but because producing them for the poor is unprofitable. Advocates argue that over generations, this proven toll accumulates a death body count that no economic system should be allowed to excuse. In their view, a system that can produce abundance but chooses scarcity is a failure

Skeptics will call this socialism. Supporters would answer that we already have socialism, just aimed in the wrong direction, upward, toward shareholders and executives, funded by everyone below. The question is not whether government drives the economy. It already does. The question is whether the government should continue to rescue private failures for free at the expense of the working class, or whether the public should demand ownership and abundance in return.

Summary

Capitalism's repeated failures and repeated working-class bailouts suggest a system that cannot effectively police or manage itself, and this post laid out a three-part response. Businesses too big to fail should become public property when they fail; functions that survive only on government funding should be absorbed by the government entirely; and the state should compete with private firms in food, housing, energy, water, medicine, and transportation, producing in excess to force prices down. The core argument is that markets will never voluntarily create the abundance necessary for human survival, so the public sector must do so.

When Markets Fail, the Public Should Step In

Abstract

Summary

References:

Buy me a coffee at:

Visit my blog at:

Read more

How to set up your own private, offline AI on a Mac

Same Job, Fewer Workers: Why Technology May Bring Mass Unemployment

Strong Public Investment Without Debt: Putting MMT to Work

Why Space Data Centers Are a Bad Idea With Today’s Technology