Capitalism should not be condemned, since we haven't had capitalism. A system of capitalism presumes sound money, not fiat money manipulated by a central bank. Capitalism cherishes voluntary contracts and interest rates that are determined by savings, not credit creation by a central bank. It's not capitalism when the system is plagued with incomprehensible rules regarding mergers, acquisitions, and stock sales, along with wage controls, price controls, protectionism, corporate subsidies, international management of trade, complex and punishing corporate taxes, privileged government contracts to the military-industrial complex, and a foreign policy controlled by corporate interests and overseas investments. Add to this centralized federal mismanagement of farming, education, medicine, insurance, banking and welfare. This is not capitalism!

To condemn free-market capitalism because of anything going on today makes no sense. There is no evidence that capitalism exists today. We are deeply involved in an interventionist-planned economy that allows major benefits to accrue to the politically connected of both political spectrums. One may condemn the fraud and the current system, but it must be called by its proper names – Keynesian inflationism, interventionism, and corporatism.

Cleveland Buck wrote:

Capitalism should not be condemned, since we haven't had capitalism. A system of capitalism presumes sound money, not fiat money manipulated by a central bank. Capitalism cherishes voluntary contracts and interest rates that are determined by savings, not credit creation by a central bank. It's not capitalism when the system is plagued with incomprehensible rules regarding mergers, acquisitions, and stock sales, along with wage controls, price controls, protectionism, corporate subsidies, international management of trade, complex and punishing corporate taxes, privileged government contracts to the military-industrial complex, and a foreign policy controlled by corporate interests and overseas investments. Add to this centralized federal mismanagement of farming, education, medicine, insurance, banking and welfare. This is not capitalism!

To condemn free-market capitalism because of anything going on today makes no sense. There is no evidence that capitalism exists today. We are deeply involved in an interventionist-planned economy that allows major benefits to accrue to the politically connected of both political spectrums. One may condemn the fraud and the current system, but it must be called by its proper names – Keynesian inflationism, interventionism, and corporatism.

I have been saying that we are not a capitalist, free market economy and we haven't been for a long time. It would be nice if we tried it out.

Capitalism should not be condemned, since we haven't had capitalism. A system of capitalism presumes sound money, not fiat money manipulated by a central bank. Capitalism cherishes voluntary contracts and interest rates that are determined by savings, not credit creation by a central bank. It's not capitalism when the system is plagued with incomprehensible rules regarding mergers, acquisitions, and stock sales, along with wage controls, price controls, protectionism, corporate subsidies, international management of trade, complex and punishing corporate taxes, privileged government contracts to the military-industrial complex, and a foreign policy controlled by corporate interests and overseas investments. Add to this centralized federal mismanagement of farming, education, medicine, insurance, banking and welfare. This is not capitalism!

To condemn free-market capitalism because of anything going on today makes no sense. There is no evidence that capitalism exists today. We are deeply involved in an interventionist-planned economy that allows major benefits to accrue to the politically connected of both political spectrums. One may condemn the fraud and the current system, but it must be called by its proper names – Keynesian inflationism, interventionism, and corporatism.

dm27 wrote: I like Ron Paul because he is for very small government and the free market. I also felt like he would've done something about the corruption and waste that goes on in today's government but his foreign policy leaves me thinking what the hell??

BCSbunk wrote: I found this article today while doing my daily readings. I agree with the author. If we are to err then lets err on the side of freedom and liberty and not under control and regulations.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul42.html

majorspark wrote:

dm27 wrote: I like Ron Paul because he is for very small government and the free market. I also felt like he would've done something about the corruption and waste that goes on in today's government but his foreign policy leaves me thinking what the hell??

Like you I have some issues with Ron Paul's foreign policy. But if we continue the unbridled spending we will have little funds or public support for current foreign policy expenditures. We will have little choice but to save our own economic ass.

Footwedge wrote:

BCSbunk wrote: I found this article today while doing my daily readings. I agree with the author. If we are to err then lets err on the side of freedom and liberty and not under control and regulations.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul42.html

I love the utterly brilliant Ron Paul. But he speaks out of both sides of his mouth from time to time.

Bear in mind, this article was written in 2002. Obviously, the recent economic mess created by unbridled capitalism (repeal of Glass Steagal by the Graham-Leech Blily Act). Although most supporters of the libertarian platform are unswayed by the recent mess.

Dr. Paul needs to understand that free markets without police through the business evolution process will lead to corporate collusion and corruption.

The end game is a 2 class society. How the brilliant mind of Ron Paul doesn't comprehend this is remarkable in my opinion.

Even Adam Smith, the recognized "father" of capitalistic economics recognized that. And he wrote his books 250 years ago, long before the concept of antitrust regulations were brought to the forefront.

Cleveland Buck wrote:

Footwedge wrote:

BCSbunk wrote: I found this article today while doing my daily readings. I agree with the author. If we are to err then lets err on the side of freedom and liberty and not under control and regulations.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul42.html

I love the utterly brilliant Ron Paul. But he speaks out of both sides of his mouth from time to time.

Bear in mind, this article was written in 2002. Obviously, the recent economic mess created by unbridled capitalism (repeal of Glass Steagal by the Graham-Leech Blily Act). Although most supporters of the libertarian platform are unswayed by the recent mess.

Dr. Paul needs to understand that free markets without police through the business evolution process will lead to corporate collusion and corruption.

The end game is a 2 class society. How the brilliant mind of Ron Paul doesn't comprehend this is remarkable in my opinion.

Even Adam Smith, the recognized "father" of capitalistic economics recognized that. And he wrote his books 250 years ago, long before the concept of antitrust regulations were brought to the forefront.

There are ways you can guard against this without the government taking over the economy. If you limit the size a company can growth through anti-trust regulations, then you will always have competition, and the more competition, the less likely there is to be collusion.

I never said the government should take over the economy. Never hinted at it. Nor do I believe that is the answer. The second point that you make is the exact point I've been hammering on here for 3 years. But Dr. Paul doesn't agree with you nor with me regarding the government getting tough with antitrust regulations. He somehow thinks that corporate interests will police themselves. Well....they have proven time and time again they won't.

Buck you know the definition of fascism. So I ask you....why is the sytstem any more horrible if the government owns the private industry....versus today's model where private industry owns the government?

Is inverted fascism not fascism? Don'y both systems lead to totalitarianism?

Also, what we have just seen was not unbridled capitalism, it was banks that knew they were too big to fail taking obscene risks because they knew they could get money from the government if they needed it. Hell, the government backed many of those risks that they took (Fannie and Freddie mortgages).

You state that we don't have unbridled capitalism, and then you cite 2 examples of where unbridled capitalism has virtually destroyed our economy.

The problem as I view it....critical thinkers are not permitted to raise issues on the progression of our economic demise for fear of being labeled a commuinist.

Every television station, radio station, and other media, whether liberal or conservative, are owned by huge corporations. What you hear...is what they want you to hear. They are in business to maximize profit...and it matters not that the American people are suffering.

I never said the government should take over the economy. Never hinted at it. Nor do I believe that is the answer. The second point that you make is the exact point I've been hammering on here for 3 years. But Dr. Paul doesn't agree with you nor with me regarding the government getting tough with antitrust regulations. He somehow thinks that corporate interests will police themselves. Well....they have proven time and time again they won't.

Buck you know the definition of fascism. So I ask you....why is the sytstem any more horrible if the government owns the private industry....versus today's model where private industry owns the government?

Is inverted fascism not fascism? Don'y both systems lead to totalitarianism?

You state that we don't have unbridled capitalism, and then you cite 2 examples of where unbridled capitalism has virtually destroyed our economy.