First, the US administration doesn't give you a good example of neo-liberalism (or to be precise, classical liberalism). My take: agree and by that, it is wrongheaded, like many of us would like to do, to identify classical liberalism with what US administration does and has done.
Second, when it comes into what makes the crisis, Martin said:
Initially, many corporations have been given incentives to grow by excluding them from regulations that impede wealth (or capital?) accumulation. They are "being facilitated" by regulations that deliberately made easy that let moral hazard through the creation of various "peculiar" and high risk financial products.Yes, some government regulations seemed to facilitate that peril. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, for example. They are government sponsored programs.
Third, he also said:
It strongly suggests that the return of state role in the US tends to become an effort to protect more capital owner than public. The thesis of the state as capital owner's benefactor, as had been said by Karl Marx, is really manifested in the US crisis.If so, can we just
Well never mind, but can we just see the bailout as an attempt to save the economy in general, too --regardless whether you like the idea or not?
p/s: I am reading an open letter to my friend on the left (HT: Aco)