I don't give a lick about capitalism. What I care about is free markets, within which capitalism will inevitably emerge. When most leftists lash out against capitalism, they are generally referring to the free market. becuase it is a free market that allows for society to allocate it;s privately held resources in whatever manner is most befitting. It is why doctors make more than ditch diggers, and why a Testarossa costs more than a Taurus. It is the free market, itself a function of a free society, theat leads to wealth inequality.
Alright, now we're getting somewhere.
Tell me if you agree with this guy: peterlbrandt.com
The purpose of the markets is to redistribute wealth from the many to the few
Yes, yes, I know what you are going to say ... about how the markets allow corporations to raise capital in order to expand ... yadda, yadda, yadda!
But, while this is a function of the markets, it is not the purpose. The purpose is to make a very few people very wealthy at the expense of the many. If the markets fail to fulfill this purpose, then the markets will cease to exist.
The wealth distribution takes place over very extended periods of time (decades, even generations). But, we see this concept operating over shorter time periods. Like the present, for example.
Where does this all lead? If all that matters are markets, who are you? Despite not participating in a market economy, you work hard and you do something important, no?
Free markets are a good environment for capitalism to flourish, but there's more to the picture. Upon gaining a foothold, a capitalist builds walls around their business, and seeks to to achieve ownership of the market itself. At which point the market is no longer free. There must be an entity which knocks down those walls, or keeps them from being built in the first place. That is government's role. But that's not their only role. Sometimes, the government and capitalists both want a non-free market.
"it is a free market that allows for society to allocate it;s privately held resources in whatever manner is most befitting."
Benefiting society, or for holders of private resources?
There's a saying, well there was, "What's good for General Motors is good for America." But that's not always so. Liquidating rail-based infrastructure wasn't good for America. It was, however, great for GM. The auto bailout, I'd argue, was good for both GM and America, but bad for the market. Rumsfeld said the collapse of Enron showed the genius of capitalism, and maybe he was right, but the outcome for the average Californian utility customer or Enron employee was a bad one.
The free market is a concept; a goal perhaps, but certainly not an achievable thing. And some things are far too important to be left to the irrationality and viciousness of an apparatus whose purpose is to redistribute wealth from the many to the few -- we can only withstand so many Enrons and WorldComs. The protection of our economic interests under the guise of "national defense" is too important to be left to the market. Some people wonder why we spend billions in the Middle East. It's to regulate the energy market; to ensure we have continued access to those resources, to keep someone from stealing our seat at the table of that most important and very non-free market. And so long as the cards are in our favor, there is no reason to bring freedom to that market. We stack the deck by making two-bit dictators an offer they can't refuse, and making an example of those who do refuse. Why would we ever allow something that important to respond to "natural" market forces? It makes as much sense as blowing all the levees on the Mississippi River.
