Nem todo o investimento resulta. E quando o estado mete a mão (e o resto do corpo) visível, a tendência é de desgraça anunciada para as gerações futuras., especialmente quando se repetem as receitas – mais investimento estatal, aposta em vias de comunicação, novas tecnologias, energias renováveis e todas as outras prioridades – que nos trouxeram até este ponto critíco.

Vale a pena ler o artigo de Dan Mitchell.

I don’t want to burst anyone’s bubble or shatter any childhood illusions, but losses are an inherent part of the free market movement. As the saying goes, “capitalism without bankruptcy is like religion without hell.”

Moreover, losses (just like gains) play an important role in that they signal to investors and entrepreneurs that resources should be reallocated in ways that are more productive for the economy.

Legend tells us that King Canute commanded the tides not to advance and learned there are limits to the power of a king when his orders had no effect.

Sadly, modern journalists, regulators, and politicians lack the same wisdom and think that government somehow can prevent losses.

But perhaps that’s unfair. They probably understand that losses sometimes happen, but they want to provide bailouts so that nobody ever learns a lesson about what happens when you touch a hot stove.

Government-subsidized risk, though, is just as foolish as government-subsidized success.