|
roachboy,
I see what you are saying and agree that I am no economist. My question, which is rhetorical in nature, is: how can we judge capitalism as a failure or success when it has never been allowed to exist without political meddling. Could it succeed in a ~truly~ laissez faire version? I can say that a decline in our moral code makes it highly unlikely that it could. Pure capitalism depends on natural law to remain successful. In the absence of natural law (society solving the problem), greed will overtake the system and government steps in (which they have). The question is whether the government stepping in is done for the welfare of the people or for the greed and corruption which exists within the government. I say it's the latter.
My vision of a capitalist system would involve the people boycotting and bankrupting corrupt/inept companies. Is that realistic? Would it be as rapid a control mechanism as a government sanction? Probably not. However, our government has increasingly stepped in long before the economic system could work it out on it's own. This meddling is used as indictments against capitalism - as examples of it having failed and needing to be propped up. The system isn't given the time it needs to naturally sort itself out (which is admittedly a slower pace.)
__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.
"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."
|