Capitalism Needs Heavy Government Involvement

Fools rush in where wise men fear to thread.

--

I consider this a "wise man". History has shown him to be just that. The "old order" did not build this nation, it fought it.

From: James Madison in Federalist #51

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.

Ooops, typo error:

Fools rush in where wise men fear to tread.

Modern big government Capitalism tends to concentrate wealth to a privileged few. In the USA in 2007, in terms of of financial wealth, the kind of liquid wealth available for investment, the top 1% had 42%, and the top 5% had 70%.

In other words, 95% of our citizens share just 30% of liquid wealth!!!!

The last time this imbalance was this severe was 1929. Severe recessions are triggered by severe imbalances.

I use the analogy of a football referee.

You wouldn’t have much of a football game without referees, but their role should be merely to make sure the rules are being followed. A referee should have no concerns about who wins and who loses. That should be the role of government involvement.

On the other hand, if referees operated like the government does in today’s climate, referees would be telling each team which plays they can and can’t run, which players can and cannot be on the field, and would have a vested interest in one team winning.

re:Obama and GK Chesterton are a page apart but the text is the same.

What are you saying by this comment?

We have been trying the “third way” (as opposed to free markets) for 60 years. It has caused disparity of income, declining standard of living, reduced the manufacturing sector, and driven investment and labor overseas. Raising taxes to unsustainable levels and expecting the government to pick winners and losers in the creative chaos of a dynamic economy is foolhardy. Statists have been trying this since Lenin. Obama is still trying. The government is the problem, not the solution. All the way, or part of the way. Either way, it does not work.

That does not answer my question. What did you mean by saying:

“Obama and GK Chesterton are a page apart but the text is the same.”

I gave you my answer: total government control over the economy or more modest ill-conceived government intrusion into the wealth creating process of the free enterprise system are variations on the same command and control theme: same text, a page apart.

You write as if what you say is opposed to the author of this thread's source/subject the book "Towards a Truly Free Market', but obviously you have not read what the author has written, and you have let your preconcieved notions prevail over reality. The author's book is precisely about how "total government control over the economy or more modest ill-conceived government intrusion into the wealth creating process of the free enterprise system" has created the monster we have today!!!!

From "Towards a Truly free Market" pages 242-243 (this is just a snippet, the details and living examples of what he proposes are in the book):

"Traditions and institutions of civic responsibility and democracy grow first in the village and the city, and only later work their way up to the national and international levels. The liberal tradition of trying to impose order from the top is like trying to build a house by starting with the roof. To reinvigorate the political order we must follow the principle of subsidiarity; that is, we must transfer as much power and responsibility to the local levels of government as possible. To reinvigorate the political order we must follow the principle of subsidiarity; that is, we must transfer as much power and responsibility to the local levels of government as possible. Further, the purpose of the higher levels of government is to serve the lower levels, not be served by them. Strong local institutions, endowed with rights of their own and backed by citizens willing to defend those rights, are the best guarantee against national and international tyranny.

Distributism and Government

Critics of distributism often charge that the theory is no more than a variety of socialism. This charge is odd for two reasons: One, socialism is the theory that there should be no private property, while distributism is the theory that property ought to be spread as broadly as possible; the two are precisely opposite. Two, the actual practice of distributism, in Mondragon Cooperative corporation, the Emilia-Romagna Development Agency, the Taiwan "Land to tiller" Program of General Douglas MacArthur, the ESOP - Springfield ReManufacturing Corp, and other places, are more "libertarian" than anything the libertarians have been able to accomplish.

Maybe it is the term distributism which conjures up the specter of redistribution, the idea that some committee of bureaucrats will decide who will-and who will not-own property? BUT Distributism is not about what the government ought to do as about what it ought to stop doing. The claim of the distributist in this regard is not much different from the claim of the anarchist libertarian: it is central government protection which fosters the accumulation of property into fewer and fewer hands. Indeed, without the aid and protection of government, the piles of capital could not have grown as high as they have. And the higher the piles of privileged private capital grow, the thicker the walls of public power necessary to protect them. Big government and big capital go together, and this is a simple fact of our history, beyond all reasonable dispute."

SC_Pete wrote: I gave you my answer: total government control over the economy or more modest ill-conceived government intrusion into the wealth creating process of the free enterprise system are variations on the same command and control theme: same text, a page apart.

Verdugo responds:

You write as if what you say is opposed to the author of this thread's source/subject the book "Towards a Truly Free Market', but obviously you have not read what the author has written, and you have let your preconcieved notions prevail over reality. The author's book is precisely about how "total government control over the economy or more modest ill-conceived government intrusion into the wealth creating process of the free enterprise system" has created the monster we have today!!!!

From "Towards a Truly free Market" pages 242-243 (this is just a snippet, the details and living examples of what he proposes are in the book):

"Traditions and institutions of civic responsibility and democracy grow first in the village and the city, and only later work their way up to the national and international levels. The liberal tradition of trying to impose order from the top is like trying to build a house by starting with the roof. To reinvigorate the political order we must follow the principle of subsidiarity; that is, we must transfer as much power and responsibility to the local levels of government as possible. To reinvigorate the political order we must follow the principle of subsidiarity; that is, we must transfer as much power and responsibility to the local levels of government as possible. Further, the purpose of the higher levels of government is to serve the lower levels, not be served by them. Strong local institutions, endowed with rights of their own and backed by citizens willing to defend those rights, are the best guarantee against national and international tyranny.

Distributism and Government

Critics of distributism often charge that the theory is no more than a variety of socialism. This charge is odd for two reasons: One, socialism is the theory that there should be no private property, while distributism is the theory that property ought to be spread as broadly as possible; the two are precisely opposite. Two, the actual practice of distributism, in Mondragon Cooperative corporation, the Emilia-Romagna Development Agency, the Taiwan "Land to tiller" Program of General Douglas MacArthur, the ESOP - Springfield ReManufacturing Corp, and other places, are more "libertarian" than anything the libertarians have been able to accomplish.

Maybe it is the term distributism which conjures up the specter of redistribution, the idea that some committee of bureaucrats will decide who will-and who will not-own property? BUT Distributism is not about what the government ought to do as about what it ought to stop doing. The claim of the distributist in this regard is not much different from the claim of the anarchist libertarian: it is central government protection which fosters the accumulation of property into fewer and fewer hands. Indeed, without the aid and protection of government, the piles of capital could not have grown as high as they have. And the higher the piles of privileged private capital grow, the thicker the walls of public power necessary to protect them. Big government and big capital go together, and this is a simple fact of our history, beyond all reasonable dispute."