Estado Sentido

Se há algo que está na moda é injuriar esse tal de «neo-liberalismo» e, principalmente, o mercado livre. Muitos dos que defendem o mercado livre mas advogam por aí contra o neo-liberalismo, tendo a perfeita noção que não se sabe bem o que é o neo-liberalismo (a não ser, como aponta José Manuel Moreira em "Social: a palavra-doninha" (Leais, Imparciais e Liberais), um conceito para o qual a maior parte dos críticos do liberalismo remete todos os tipos de políticas que não são do seu agrado), começam também a refrear os seus ímpetos à medida que se vão apercebendo que podem já ter ido demasiado longe, acabando por colocar o próprio conceito de mercado livre em causa - o que ainda serve os propósitos de certas ideologias predadoras do indivíduo.

Parece-me por isso bastante oportuno este artigo, de onde destaco o seguinte:

You may recall that as the crisis initially unfolded, there was a reflexive reaction on the part of many to blame deregulation, without presenting any evidence for that position. Black makes numerous references to a lack of regulation as being responsible for the mess, but does bring up specific examples. Black quite naturally brings with him the bias of a regulator, so it is necessary to examine what he says in order to evaluate his assertions. I have summarized some of his key points below, in the order in which they surfaced in the interview, while adding my own thoughts after each.

This crisis was driven by fraud … on the part of mortgage loan originators, rating agencies, investment banks, and AIG:

Black attributes the collapse to fraud and equates this with a lack of regulation. However, as Sheldon Richman pointed out in connection with the Madoff scandal, this is a false equivalence. "Dear Ms. Maddow:
Why do you call the government’s failure to pursue fraud allegations in the Madoff case "deregulation"? Laws against fraud – that is, against the acquisition of someone else’s property by deceitful means – have never been regarded as "regulation" or limits on free-market activity. They were simply part of the free market’s common-law prohibition against violating person and property. Regulation, on the other hand, consists of government interference with private parties setting their own nonfraudulent terms of exchange in the market. By equating abstention from investigating fraud with laissez faire, you have allowed your ideology to blind you. Maybe this would be a good topic for discussion on your program." In other words, failure to investigate and prosecute fraud is a fundamental breakdown in the rule of law, much as it would be to do likewise for cases of murder or conventional robbery. It is not a characteristic of a free market. If we want to get to the bottom of the problems, as I believe Black sincerely does, we need to be very careful about diagnosing the problems correctly and a prerequisite for doing so is using accurate language. This is not mere quibbling about semantics.

(...)

These problems were a result of ideologies which swept away regulation. Regulation and law enforcement mean that cheaters don’t prosper and allow capitalism to function properly and honest purveyors to succeed:

As discussed earlier, free markets DO punish fraud, so if there was an ideology that was responsible for the non-punishment of fraud, it is not a free market one.

Free markets also punish reckless behavior by allowing companies and individuals to endure the consequences of their actions, not get bailed out. This is another way that they allow honest and prudent people to succeed.

Free markets also allow for open competition which over time will produce better businesses. On the other hand, for example, giving regulatory preferences to certain rating agencies will create a cartel instead, making it more likely for the poor performance of said companies noted after the crash of the Technology Bubble to continue.