Economics 101

[Vasilius Konstantinos]

I heard Sen. Russ Feingold admit that he knew nothing about economics, yet he voted 100% for the Stimulus package based on the economic view that tax and spend is the best solution. The issue is tax and spend is not Capitalism, its Mercantilism by nature and Corporatism by application, neither of which Capitalism is.

So on this note do you believe that it should be necessary for the sanctity of our Economic approaches, as established as Capitalism, be guaranteed to remain intact by only voting for those who will only support Capitalism 100%?  

[Lord Bitememan]

Based on the constrained definitions I've seen advanced for what constitutes Capitalism, no, we should never limit ourselves in such ways. Not to mention that Capitalism exists mostly as a theoretical, not a practical system, much as Socialism and Communism are socio-economic theories, and in practice are forced to deviate greatly from the theoretical models.  

[Latopazora]

there needs to be some restraint. As much as we do not like the government making laws on how to run the companies, it is needed. We do need the anti-trust laws, enviromental laws, unions, child labor laws and laws dealing with illegal aliens. We also need to keep an eye on what we export as well, I was watching 20/20 and a computer recycling company was sending their computers to China to be taken apart, and it was destroying the enviroment where the chinese people were dismantling the computers. So, there are very good reasons for the government to step in.  

[Rainbowfied Mouse]

As LB has stated, I will also enforce his opinion. Economics in itself is at large a theory, the monitoring of money is nearly impossible to do and see the effects... economics is affected by psychology and sociology as well, which makes it difficult at hand to find out the precise location of things like inflation. One bankers decision can lead a chain of links to change the whole nations currency. 100% Capitalism is not the way to go... I'm not just saying that because I agree with a more Socialist perspective. As we seen in the 19th century and the early 1900s, there was little economic restraint, and a very very free market, but it ended up leading to an oligopoly system, which in itself is against a "free" market. Anti-monopoly laws, and some form of help to those who cannot help themselves I find necessary. ((I'm not sure if "free market" and "capitalism" can be used interchangeably o0))  

[Vasilius Konstantinos]

Other than ethics laws which needed to be in place, I completely disagree with all of you.

Corporatism, which is what we have been living in since the 1890's was not the evil monopoly system we have heard so many ills about but the fact that a few bankers involved with multiple entrepreneurs who decided to take out the rest used political ties to lobby against other businesses enforcing new regulations which ran the competition into the ground. JP Morgan was one of them, Rockefeller another and the list delves all the way down to Kaiser and Carnegie. The government intervening into the businesses is what created the problem, not the lack of it.

Just check out this place and browse for a bit, seriously: http://www.mises.org